Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2020
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	16. Commitments and Contingencies On a quarterly and annual basis, we review relevant information with respect to loss contingencies and update our accruals, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of loss based on such reviews. We establish liabilities for loss contingencies when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. For matters where a loss is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, no accrual has been made. Litigation Durom Cup-related claims: On July 22, 2008, we temporarily suspended marketing and distribution of the Durom Cup in the U.S. Subsequently, a number of product liability lawsuits were filed against us in various U.S. and foreign jurisdictions. The plaintiffs seek damages for personal injury, and they generally allege that the Durom Cup contains defects that result in complications and premature revision of the device. We have settled the majority of these claims and others are still pending. The majority of the pending U.S. lawsuits are currently in a federal Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) in the District of New Jersey (In Re: Zimmer Durom Hip Cup Products Liability Litigation). Litigation activity in the MDL is stayed pending finalization of the U.S. Durom Cup Settlement Program, an extrajudicial program created to resolve actions and claims of eligible U.S. plaintiffs and claimants. Other lawsuits are pending in various domestic and foreign jurisdictions, and additional claims may be asserted in the future. The majority of claims outside the U.S. are pending in Germany, Netherlands and Italy. Since 2008, we have recognized net expense of $443.0 million for Durom Cup-related claims. We did not record any gain or expense for Durom Cup-related claims in the three or six-month periods ended June 30, 2020. In the three and six-month periods ended June 30, 2019, we lowered our estimate of the number of Durom Cup-related claims we expect to settle and, as a result, we recognized gains of $7.0 million and $9.5 million, respectively, in selling, general and administrative expense. Our estimate as of June 30, 2020 of the remaining liability for all Durom Cup-related claims, including estimated legal fees, is $55.4 million. We expect to pay the majority of the Durom Cup-related claims within the next few years. Our understanding of clinical outcomes with the Durom Cup and other large diameter hip cups continues to evolve. We rely on significant estimates in determining the provisions for Durom Cup-related claims, including our estimate of the number of claims that we will receive and the average amount we will pay per claim. The actual number of claims and the actual amount we pay per claim may differ from our estimates. Among other factors, since our understanding of the clinical outcomes is still evolving, we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result from Durom Cup-related claims in excess of the losses we have accrued. Although we are vigorously defending these lawsuits, their ultimate resolution is uncertain. Zimmer M/L Taper, M/L Taper with Kinectiv Technology, and Versys Femoral Head-related claims (“Metal Reaction” claims): We are a defendant in a number of product liability lawsuits relating to our M/L Taper and M/L Taper with Kinectiv Technology hip stems, and Versys Femoral Head implants. The plaintiffs seek damages for personal injury, alleging that defects in the products lead to corrosion at the head/stem junction resulting in, among other things, pain, inflammation and revision surgery. The majority of the cases are consolidated in an MDL that was created on October 3, 2018 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (In Re: Zimmer M/L Taper Hip Prosthesis or M/L Taper Hip Prosthesis with Kinectiv Technology and Versys Femoral Head Products Liability Litigation). Other related cases are pending in various state and federal courts. Additional lawsuits are likely to be filed. Following higher than expected filings in the six-month period ended June 30, 2020, and an extension of the MDL schedule given the COVID-19 pandemic, we increased our estimate of the number of Metal Reaction-related claims that we expect to litigate in the future, resulting in additional litigation-related expense in the period. Our estimate as of June 30, 2020 of the remaining liability for all Metal Reaction-related claims, including our estimated legal fees, is $66.8 million. Although we are vigorously defending these lawsuits, their ultimate resolution is uncertain. Biomet metal-on-metal hip implant claims: Biomet is a defendant in a number of product liability lawsuits relating to metal-on-metal hip implants, most of which involve the M2a-Magnum hip system. Cases are currently consolidated in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (In Re: Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Product Liability Litigation) and in various state, federal and foreign courts, with the majority of domestic state court cases pending in Indiana and Florida. On February 3, 2014, Biomet announced the settlement of the MDL. Lawsuits filed in the MDL by April 15, 2014 were eligible to participate in the settlement. Those claims that did not settle via the MDL settlement program have re-commenced litigation in the MDL under a new case management plan, or are in the process of being remanded to their originating jurisdictions. The settlement does not affect certain other claims relating to Biomet’s metal-on-metal hip products that are pending in various state and foreign courts, or other claims that may be filed in the future. We continue to refine our estimates of the potential liability to settle the remaining claims and recognized additional litigation-related expense in the six-month period ended June 30, 2020. Our estimate as of June 30, 2020 of the remaining liability for all Biomet metal-on-metal hip implant claims, including estimated legal fees, is $69.5 million. Although we are vigorously defending these lawsuits, their ultimate resolution is uncertain. Heraeus trade secret misappropriation lawsuits: In December 2008, Heraeus Kulzer GmbH (together with its affiliates, “Heraeus”) initiated legal proceedings in Germany against Biomet, Inc., Biomet Europe BV (now Zimmer Biomet Nederland BV), certain other entities and certain employees alleging that the defendants misappropriated Heraeus trade secrets when developing Biomet Europe’s Refobacin and Biomet Bone Cement line of cements (“European Cements”). The lawsuit sought to preclude the defendants from producing, marketing and offering for sale their then-current line of European Cements and to compensate Heraeus for any damages incurred. Germany: On June 5, 2014, the German appeals court in Frankfurt (i) enjoined Biomet, Inc., Biomet Europe BV and Biomet Deutschland GmbH from manufacturing, selling or offering the European Cements to the extent they contain certain raw materials in particular specifications; (ii) held the defendants jointly and severally liable to Heraeus for any damages from the sale of European Cements since 2005; and (iii) ruled that no further review may be sought (the “Frankfurt Decision”). The Heraeus and Biomet parties both sought appeal against the Frankfurt Decision. In a decision dated June 16, 2016, the German Supreme Court dismissed the parties’ appeals without reaching the merits, rendering that decision final. In December 2016, Heraeus filed papers to restart proceedings against Biomet Orthopaedics Switzerland GmbH (now Zimmer GmbH), seeking to require that entity to relinquish its CE certificates for the European Cements. In January 2017, Heraeus notified Biomet it had filed a claim for damages in the amount of €121.9 million for sales in Germany, which it first increased to €125.9 million and with a filing in June 2019 further increased to €146.7 million plus statutory interest. In a recent filing to the court, Heraeus indicated that it might further increase its claims in the course of the proceedings. As of June 30, 2020, these two proceedings remained pending in front of the Darmstadt court. In September 2017, Heraeus filed an enforcement action in the Darmstadt court against Biomet Europe, requesting that a fine be imposed against Biomet Europe for failure to disclose the amount of the European Cements which Biomet Orthopaedics Switzerland had ordered to be manufactured in Germany (e.g., for the Chinese market). In June 2018, the Darmstadt court dismissed Heraeus’ request. Heraeus appealed the decision. Also in September 2017, Heraeus filed suit against Zimmer Biomet Deutschland in the court of first instance in Freiburg concerning the sale of the European Cements with certain changed raw materials. Heraeus sought an injunction on the basis that the continued use of the product names for the European Cements was misleading for customers and thus an act of unfair competition. On June 29, 2018, the court in Freiburg, Germany dismissed Heraeus’ request for an injunction prohibiting the marketing of the European Cements under their current names on the grounds that the same request had already been decided upon by the Frankfurt Decision which became final and binding. Heraeus appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals in Karlsruhe, Germany. The appeals hearing occurred in December 2019 and on June 19, 2020, the court dismissed the appeal on different grounds, namely that the appeals court did not find any unfair competition in the continued use of the product names. The appeals court did not grant leave to appeal, but Heraeus may file a request for appeal with the German Supreme Court. United States: On September 8, 2014, Heraeus filed a complaint against a Biomet supplier, Esschem, Inc. (“Esschem”), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit contained allegations that focused on two copolymer compounds that Esschem sold to Biomet, which Biomet incorporated into certain bone cement products that compete with Heraeus’ bone cement products. The complaint alleged that Biomet helped Esschem to develop these copolymers, using Heraeus trade secrets that Biomet allegedly misappropriated. The complaint asserted a claim under the Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act, as well as other various common law tort claims, all based upon the same trade secret misappropriation theory. Heraeus sought to enjoin Esschem from supplying the copolymers to any third party and actual damages. The complaint also sought punitive damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. Although Biomet was not a party to this lawsuit, Biomet agreed, at Esschem’s request and subject to certain limitations, to indemnify Esschem for any liability, damages and legal costs related to this matter. On November 3, 2014, the court entered an order denying Heraeus’ motion for a temporary restraining order. On June 30, 2016, the court entered an order denying Heraeus’ request to give preclusive effect to the factual findings in the Frankfurt Decision. On June 6, 2017, the court entered an order denying Heraeus’ motion to add Biomet as a party to the lawsuit. On January 26, 2018, the court entered an order granting Esschem’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed all of Heraeus’ claims with prejudice. On February 21, 2018, Heraeus filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which heard oral argument on the appeal on October 23, 2018. On June 21, 2019, the Third Circuit partially reversed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granting Esschem summary judgment and remanded the case back to the lower court. On July 5, 2019, Esschem filed a petition in the Third Circuit for rehearing en banc and a motion in the alternative to certify a question of state law to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which was denied on August 1, 2019. On June 1, 2020, as ordered by the court, the parties filed a joint status report, which remained pending as of June 30, 2020. On December 7, 2017, Heraeus filed a complaint against Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. and Biomet, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging a single claim of trade secret misappropriation under the Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act based on the same factual allegations as the Esschem litigation. On March 5, 2018, Heraeus filed an amended complaint adding a second claim of trade secret misappropriation under Pennsylvania common law. Heraeus seeks to enjoin the Zimmer Biomet parties from future use of the allegedly misappropriated trade secrets and recovery of unspecified damages for alleged past use. On April 18, 2018, the Zimmer Biomet parties filed a motion to dismiss both claims. On March 8, 2019, the court stayed the case pending the Third Circuit’s decision in the Esschem case described above. In September 2019, the Zimmer Biomet parties filed a motion to stay the proceedings pending (1) the court’s decision on Esschem’s motion for summary judgment in the Esschem case described above and (2) the outcome of the U.S. International Trade Commission complaint filed by Heraeus asserting similar claims, described below under “Regulatory Matters, Government Investigations and Other Matters.” On May 2, 2020, the court granted the Zimmer Biomet parties’ motion to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the U.S. International Trade Commission complaint filed by Heraeus. Other European Countries: Heraeus continues to pursue other related legal proceedings in Europe seeking various forms of relief, including injunctive relief and damages, against various Biomet-related and local Zimmer Biomet entities relating to the European Cements. On October 2, 2018, the Belgian Court of Appeal of Mons issued a judgment in favor of Heraeus relating to its request for past damages caused by the alleged misappropriation of its trade secrets, and an injunction preventing future sales of certain European Cements in Belgium (the “Belgian Decision”). We appealed this judgment to the Belgian Supreme Court. The Belgian Supreme Court dismissed our appeal in October 2019 and this decision is final. Heraeus filed a suit in Belgium concerning the continued sale of the European Cements with certain changed materials. Like its suit in Germany, Heraeus seeks an injunction on the basis that the continued use of the product names for the European Cements is misleading for customers and thus an act of unfair competition. On May 7, 2019, the Liège Commercial Court issued a judgment that Zimmer Biomet failed to inform its hospital and surgeon customers of the changes made to the composition of the cement with certain changed materials and ordered, as a sole remedy, that Zimmer Biomet send letters to those customers, which we have done. We and Heraeus have each filed an appeal to the judgment. On February 13, 2019, a Norwegian court of first instance issued a judgment in favor of Heraeus on its claim for misappropriation of trade secrets. The court awarded damages of 19,500,000 NOK, or approximately $2.3 million, plus attorneys’ fees, and issued an injunction, which is not final and thus not currently being enforced, preventing Zimmer Biomet Norway from marketing in Norway bone cements identified with the current product names and bone cements making use of the trade secrets which were acknowledged in the Frankfurt Decision. We have appealed the Norwegian judgment to the court of second instance. On October 29, 2019, an Italian court of first instance issued a judgment in favor of Heraeus on its claim of misappropriation of trade secrets, but did not yet order an award of damages. We filed a timely appeal of the decision. On January 23, 2020, a Finnish Market Court issued a judgment partly in favor of Heraeus on its claim of misappropriation of certain trade secrets. Damage claims were not raised in the proceedings. We appealed the decision to the Finnish Supreme Court. On July 3, 2020, the Finnish Supreme Court declined to review the case, rendering the Market Court decision final. Heraeus is pursuing damages and injunctive relief in France in an effort to prevent us from manufacturing, marketing and selling the European Cements (the “France Litigation”). The European Cements are manufactured at our facility in Valence, France. On December 11, 2018, a hearing was held in the France Litigation before the commercial court in Romans-sur-Isère. On May 23, 2019, the commercial court ruled in our favor. On July 12, 2019, Heraeus filed an appeal to the court of second instance in Grenoble, France. Although we are vigorously defending the France Litigation, the ultimate outcome is uncertain. An adverse ruling in the France Litigation could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. We have accrued an estimated loss relating to the collective trade secret litigation, including estimated legal costs to defend. Damages relating to the Frankfurt Decision are subject to separate proceedings, and the Belgian court appointed an expert to determine the amount of damages related to the Belgian Decision. Thus, it is reasonably possible that our estimate of the loss we may incur may change in the future. Although we are vigorously defending these lawsuits, their ultimate resolution is uncertain. Putative Securities Class Action: On December 2, 2016, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (Shah v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et al.), naming us, one of our officers and two of our now former officers as defendants. On June 28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a corrected amended complaint, naming as defendants, in addition to those previously named, current and former members of our Board of Directors, one additional officer, and the underwriters in connection with secondary offerings of our common stock by certain selling stockholders in 2016. On October 6, 2017, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the underwriters without prejudice. On October 8, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, naming as defendants, in addition to those current and former officers and Board members previously named, certain former stockholders of ours who sold shares of our common stock in secondary public offerings in 2016. We and our current and former officers and Board members named as defendants are sometimes hereinafter referred to as the “Zimmer Biomet Defendant group”. The former stockholders of ours who sold shares of our common stock in secondary public offerings in 2016 are sometimes hereinafter referred to as the “Private Equity Fund Defendant group”. The second amended complaint relates to a putative class action on behalf of persons who purchased our common stock between June 7, 2016 and November 7, 2016. The second amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making materially false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions about our compliance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regulations and our ability to continue to accelerate our organic revenue growth rate in the second half of 2016. The defendants filed their respective motions to dismiss on December 20, 2017, plaintiffs filed their omnibus response to the motions to dismiss on March 13, 2018 and the defendants filed their respective reply briefs on May 18, 2018. On September 27, 2018, the court denied the Zimmer Biomet Defendant group’s motion to dismiss in its entirety. The court granted the Private Equity Fund Defendant group’s motion to dismiss, without prejudice. On October 9, 2018, the Zimmer Biomet Defendant group filed a motion (i) to amend the court’s order on the motion to certify two issues for interlocutory appeal, and (ii) to stay proceedings pending appeal. On February 21, 2019, that motion was denied. On April 11, 2019, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. On June 20, 2019, the Zimmer Biomet Defendant group filed its response. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief. Although we believe this lawsuit is without merit, during a mediation in December 2019, plaintiffs and defendants, along with Zimmer Biomet’s insurers, reached a settlement in principle to resolve the claims for $50.0 million. We made an accrual for the proposed settlement that we expect to be fully covered by our insurers. On May 21, 2020, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. On or before June 12, 2020, all responsible insurers made their payments to the qualified settlement fund. The final approval hearing is scheduled for September 3, 2020. Shareholder Derivative Actions: On June 14, 2019 and July 29, 2019, two shareholder derivative actions, Green v. Begley et al. and Detectives Endowment Association Annuity Fund v. Begley et al., were filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware. On October 2, 2019 and October 11, 2019, two additional shareholder derivative actions, Karp v. Begley et al. and DiGaudio v. Begley et al., were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The plaintiff in each action seeks to maintain the action purportedly on our behalf against certain of our current and former directors and officers (the “individual defendants”) and certain former stockholders of ours who sold shares of our common stock in various secondary public offerings in 2016 (the “private equity fund defendants”). The plaintiff in each action alleges, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties against the individual defendants and insider trading against two individual defendants and the private equity fund defendants, based on substantially the same factual allegations as the putative federal securities class action referenced above (Shah v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et al.). On June 4, 2020, the plaintiffs in the Chancery Court actions filed a consolidated amended complaint adding three new counts and expanding the scope of the alleged material false statements. The plaintiffs do not seek damages from us, but instead request damages on our behalf from the defendants of an unspecified amount. The plaintiffs also seek attorneys’ fees, costs and other relief. Regulatory Matters, Government Investigations and Other Matters U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation: On March 5, 2019, Heraeus filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) against us and certain of our subsidiaries. The complaint alleges that Biomet misappropriated Heraeus’ trade secrets in the formulation and manufacture of two bone cement products now sold by Zimmer Biomet, both of which are imported from our Valence, France facility. Heraeus requested that the ITC institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders. On April 5, 2019, the ITC ordered an investigation be instituted into whether we have committed an “unfair act” in the importation, sale for importation, or sale after importation of certain bone cement products. An evidentiary hearing in front of an administrative law judge at the ITC was held in January 2020 and an Initial Determination was issued on May 6, 2020. In the Initial Determination, the administrative law judge held that we did not commit an “unfair act” in the importation, sale for importation, or sale after importation of the two challenged bone cement products, and thus we are not restricted from continuing to manufacture and sell the two challenged bone cement products in the United States. On July 13, 2020, the ITC issued notice of intent to review the Initial Determination in part and is expected to issue a Final Determination in September 2020. Thereafter, the Final Determination is subject to review on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by either or both of Heraeus and us. We cannot currently predict the ultimate outcome of this investigation after review by the ITC and any appeals, but an adverse outcome in this ITC proceeding could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. FDA warning letters: In August 2018, we received a warning letter from the FDA related to observed non-conformities with current good manufacturing practice requirements of the FDA’s Quality System Regulation (21 CFR Part 820) (“QSR”) at our legacy Biomet manufacturing facility in Warsaw, Indiana (this facility is sometimes referred to in this report as the “Warsaw North Campus”). In September 2012, we received a warning letter from the FDA citing concerns relating to certain processes pertaining to products manufactured at our Ponce, Puerto Rico manufacturing facility. We have provided detailed responses to the FDA as to our corrective actions and will continue to work expeditiously to address the issues identified by the FDA during inspections in Warsaw and Ponce. As of June 30, 2020, the Warsaw and Ponce warning letters remained pending. Until the violations cited in the pending warning letters are corrected, we may be subject to additional regulatory action by the FDA, as described more fully below. Additionally, requests for Certificates to Foreign Governments related to products manufactured at certain of our facilities may not be granted and premarket approval applications for Class III devices to which the QSR deviations at these facilities are reasonably related will not be approved until the violations have been corrected. In addition to responding to the warning letters described above, we are in the process of addressing various FDA Form 483 inspectional observations at certain of our manufacturing facilities, including observations issued by the FDA following an inspection of the Warsaw North Campus in January 2020, which inspection the FDA has classified as Voluntary Action Indicated (“VAI”). The ultimate outcome of these matters is presently uncertain. Among other available regulatory actions, the FDA may impose operating restrictions, including a ceasing of operations, at one or more facilities, enjoining and restraining certain violations of applicable law pertaining to products, seizure of products and assessing civil or criminal penalties against our officers, employees or us. The FDA could also issue a corporate warning letter or a recidivist warning letter or negotiate the entry of a consent decree of permanent injunction with us. The FDA may also recommend prosecution by the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”). Any adverse regulatory action, depending on its magnitude, may restrict us from effectively manufacturing, marketing and selling our products and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Deferred Prosecution Agreement (“DPA”) relating to U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) matters: On January 12, 2017, we resolved previously-disclosed FCPA matters involving Biomet and certain of its subsidiaries. As part of the settlement, (i) Biomet resolved matters with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) through an administrative cease-and-desist order (the “Order”); (ii) we entered into a DPA with the DOJ; and (iii) JERDS Luxembourg Holding S.à r.l. (“JERDS”), the direct parent company of Biomet 3i Mexico SA de CV and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Biomet, entered into a plea agreement (the “Plea Agreement”) with the DOJ. The conduct underlying these resolutions occurred prior to our acquisition of Biomet. Pursuant to the terms of the Order, Biomet resolved claims with the SEC related to violations of the books and records, internal controls and anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA by disgorging profits to the U.S. government in an aggregate amount of approximately $6.5 million, inclusive of pre-judgment interest, and paying a civil penalty in the amount of $6.5 million (collectively, the “Civil Settlement Payments”). We also agreed to pay a criminal penalty of approximately $17.5 million (together with the Civil Settlement Payments, the “Settlement Payments”) to the U.S. government pursuant to the terms of the DPA. We made the Settlement Payments in January 2017 and, as previously disclosed, had accrued, as of June 24, 2015, the closing date of the Biomet merger, an amount sufficient to cover this matter. In addition, under its Plea Agreement with the DOJ, JERDS pleaded guilty on January 13, 2017 to aiding and abetting a violation of the books and records provision of the FCPA. In light of the DPA we entered into, JERDS paid only a nominal assessment and no criminal penalty. Under the DPA, which has a term of three years, the DOJ agreed to defer criminal prosecution of us in connection with the charged violation of the internal controls provision of the FCPA as long as we comply with the terms of the DPA. In addition, we are subject to oversight by an independent compliance monitor, who was appointed effective as of August 7, 2017. On July 17, 2020, the independent compliance monitor submitted a letter to the SEC and DOJ certifying that our compliance program, including its policies and procedures, is reasonably designed and implemented to prevent and detect violations of the FCPA and is functioning effectively. We expect the monitorship to conclude no later than August 7, 2020 and the charges against us to be dismissed with prejudice. If we do not comply with the terms of the DPA, we could be subject to prosecution for violating the internal controls provisions of the FCPA and the conduct of Biomet and its subsidiaries described in the DPA, which conduct pre-dated our acquisition of Biomet, as well as any new or continuing violations. We could also be subject to exclusion by the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services from participation in federal healthcare programs, including Medicaid and Medicare. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2020

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

16. Commitments and Contingencies

On a quarterly and annual basis, we review relevant information with respect to loss contingencies and update our accruals, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of loss based on such reviews. We establish liabilities for loss contingencies when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. For matters where a loss is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, no accrual has been made.

Litigation

Durom Cup-related claims: On July 22, 2008, we temporarily suspended marketing and distribution of the Durom Cup in the U.S. Subsequently, a number of product liability lawsuits were filed against us in various U.S. and foreign jurisdictions. The plaintiffs seek damages for personal injury, and they generally allege that the Durom Cup contains defects that result in complications and premature revision of the device. We have settled the majority of these claims and others are still pending. The majority of the pending U.S. lawsuits are currently in a federal Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) in the District of New Jersey (In Re: Zimmer Durom Hip Cup Products Liability Litigation). Litigation activity in the MDL is stayed pending finalization of the U.S. Durom Cup Settlement Program, an extrajudicial program created to resolve actions and claims of eligible U.S. plaintiffs and claimants. Other lawsuits are pending in various domestic and foreign jurisdictions, and additional claims may be asserted in the future. The majority of claims outside the U.S. are pending in Germany, Netherlands and Italy.

Since 2008, we have recognized net expense of $443.0 million for Durom Cup-related claims. We did not record any gain or expense for Durom Cup-related claims in the three or six-month periods ended June 30, 2020. In the three and six-month periods ended June 30, 2019, we lowered our estimate of the number of Durom Cup-related claims we expect to settle and, as a result, we recognized gains of $7.0 million and $9.5 million, respectively, in selling, general and administrative expense.

Our estimate as of June 30, 2020 of the remaining liability for all Durom Cup-related claims, including estimated legal fees, is $55.4 million. We expect to pay the majority of the Durom Cup-related claims within the next few years.

Our understanding of clinical outcomes with the Durom Cup and other large diameter hip cups continues to evolve. We rely on significant estimates in determining the provisions for Durom Cup-related claims, including our estimate of the number of claims that we will receive and the average amount we will pay per claim. The actual number of claims and the actual amount we pay per claim may differ from our estimates. Among other factors, since our understanding of the clinical outcomes is still evolving, we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result from Durom Cup-related claims in excess of the losses we have accrued. Although we are vigorously defending these lawsuits, their ultimate resolution is uncertain.

Zimmer M/L Taper, M/L Taper with Kinectiv Technology, and Versys Femoral Head-related claims (“Metal Reaction” claims): We are a defendant in a number of product liability lawsuits relating to our M/L Taper and M/L Taper with Kinectiv Technology hip stems, and Versys Femoral Head implants. The plaintiffs seek damages for personal injury, alleging that defects in the products lead to corrosion at the head/stem junction resulting in, among other things, pain, inflammation and revision surgery.

The majority of the cases are consolidated in an MDL that was created on October 3, 2018 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (In Re: Zimmer M/L Taper Hip Prosthesis or M/L Taper Hip Prosthesis with Kinectiv Technology and Versys Femoral Head Products Liability Litigation). Other related cases are pending in various state and federal courts. Additional lawsuits are likely to be filed. Following higher than expected filings in the six-month period ended June 30, 2020, and an extension of the MDL schedule given the COVID-19 pandemic, we increased our estimate of the number of Metal Reaction-related claims that we expect to litigate in the future, resulting in additional litigation-related expense in the period. Our estimate as of June 30, 2020 of the remaining liability for all Metal Reaction-related claims, including our estimated legal fees, is $66.8 million. Although we are vigorously defending these lawsuits, their ultimate resolution is uncertain.

Biomet metal-on-metal hip implant claims: Biomet is a defendant in a number of product liability lawsuits relating to metal-on-metal hip implants, most of which involve the M2a-Magnum hip system. Cases are currently consolidated in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (In Re: Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Product Liability Litigation) and in various state, federal and foreign courts, with the majority of domestic state court cases pending in Indiana and Florida.

On February 3, 2014, Biomet announced the settlement of the MDL. Lawsuits filed in the MDL by April 15, 2014 were eligible to participate in the settlement. Those claims that did not settle via the MDL settlement program have re-commenced litigation in the MDL under a new case management plan, or are in the process of being remanded to their originating jurisdictions. The settlement does not affect certain other claims relating to Biomet’s metal-on-metal hip products that are pending in various state and foreign courts, or other claims that may be filed in the future. We continue to refine our estimates of the potential liability to settle the remaining claims and recognized additional litigation-related expense in the six-month period ended June 30, 2020. Our estimate as of June 30, 2020 of the remaining liability for all Biomet metal-on-metal hip implant claims, including estimated legal fees, is $69.5 million. Although we are vigorously defending these lawsuits, their ultimate resolution is uncertain.

Heraeus trade secret misappropriation lawsuits: In December 2008, Heraeus Kulzer GmbH (together with its affiliates, “Heraeus”) initiated legal proceedings in Germany against Biomet, Inc., Biomet Europe BV (now Zimmer Biomet Nederland BV), certain other entities and certain employees alleging that the defendants misappropriated Heraeus trade secrets when developing Biomet Europe’s Refobacin and Biomet Bone Cement line of cements (“European Cements”). The lawsuit sought to preclude the defendants from producing, marketing and offering for sale their then-current line of European Cements and to compensate Heraeus for any damages incurred.

Germany: On June 5, 2014, the German appeals court in Frankfurt (i) enjoined Biomet, Inc., Biomet Europe BV and Biomet Deutschland GmbH from manufacturing, selling or offering the European Cements to the extent they contain certain raw materials in particular specifications; (ii) held the defendants jointly and severally liable to Heraeus for any damages from the sale of European Cements since 2005; and (iii) ruled that no further review may be sought (the “Frankfurt Decision”). The Heraeus and Biomet parties both sought appeal against the Frankfurt Decision. In a decision dated June 16, 2016, the German Supreme Court dismissed the parties’ appeals without reaching the merits, rendering that decision final.

In December 2016, Heraeus filed papers to restart proceedings against Biomet Orthopaedics Switzerland GmbH (now Zimmer GmbH), seeking to require that entity to relinquish its CE certificates for the European Cements. In January 2017, Heraeus notified Biomet it had filed a claim for damages in the amount of €121.9 million for sales in Germany, which it first increased to €125.9 million and with a filing in June 2019 further increased to €146.7 million plus statutory interest. In a recent filing to the court, Heraeus indicated that it might further increase its claims in the course of the proceedings. As of June 30, 2020, these two proceedings remained pending in front of the Darmstadt court. In September 2017, Heraeus filed an enforcement action in the Darmstadt court against Biomet Europe, requesting that a fine be imposed against Biomet Europe for failure to disclose the amount of the European Cements which Biomet Orthopaedics Switzerland had ordered to be manufactured in Germany (e.g., for the Chinese market). In June 2018, the Darmstadt court dismissed Heraeus’ request. Heraeus appealed the decision. Also in September 2017, Heraeus filed suit against Zimmer Biomet Deutschland in the court of first instance in Freiburg concerning the sale of the European Cements with certain changed raw materials. Heraeus sought an injunction on the basis that the continued use of the product names for the European Cements was misleading for customers and thus an act of unfair competition. On June 29, 2018, the court in Freiburg, Germany dismissed Heraeus’ request for an injunction prohibiting the marketing of the European Cements under their current names on the grounds that the same request had already been decided upon by the Frankfurt Decision which became final and binding. Heraeus appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals in Karlsruhe, Germany. The appeals hearing occurred in December 2019 and on June 19, 2020, the court dismissed the appeal on different grounds, namely that the appeals court did not find any unfair competition in the continued use of the product names. The appeals court did not grant leave to appeal, but Heraeus may file a request for appeal with the German Supreme Court.

United States: On September 8, 2014, Heraeus filed a complaint against a Biomet supplier, Esschem, Inc. (“Esschem”), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit contained allegations that focused on two copolymer compounds that Esschem sold to Biomet, which Biomet incorporated into certain bone cement products that compete with Heraeus’ bone cement products. The complaint alleged that Biomet helped Esschem to develop these copolymers, using Heraeus trade secrets that Biomet allegedly misappropriated. The complaint asserted a claim under the Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act, as well as other various common law tort claims, all based upon the same trade secret misappropriation theory. Heraeus sought to enjoin Esschem from supplying the copolymers to any third party and actual damages. The complaint also sought punitive damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. Although Biomet was not a party to this lawsuit, Biomet agreed, at Esschem’s request and subject to certain limitations, to indemnify Esschem for any liability, damages and legal costs related to this matter. On November 3, 2014, the court entered an order denying Heraeus’ motion for a temporary restraining order. On June 30, 2016, the court entered an order denying Heraeus’ request to give preclusive effect to the factual findings in the Frankfurt Decision. On June 6, 2017, the court entered an order denying Heraeus’ motion to add Biomet as a party to the lawsuit. On January 26, 2018, the court entered an order granting Esschem’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed all of Heraeus’ claims with prejudice. On February 21, 2018, Heraeus filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which heard oral argument on the appeal on October 23, 2018. On June 21, 2019, the Third Circuit partially reversed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granting Esschem summary judgment and remanded the case back to the lower court. On July 5, 2019, Esschem filed a petition in the Third Circuit for rehearing en banc and a motion in the alternative to certify a question of state law to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which was denied on August 1, 2019. On June 1, 2020, as ordered by the court, the parties filed a joint status report, which remained pending as of June 30, 2020.

On December 7, 2017, Heraeus filed a complaint against Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. and Biomet, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging a single claim of trade secret misappropriation under the Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act based on the same factual allegations as the Esschem litigation. On March 5, 2018, Heraeus filed an amended complaint adding a second claim of trade secret misappropriation under Pennsylvania common law. Heraeus seeks to enjoin the Zimmer Biomet parties from future use of the allegedly misappropriated trade secrets and recovery of unspecified damages for alleged past use. On April 18, 2018, the Zimmer Biomet parties filed a motion to dismiss both claims. On March 8, 2019, the court stayed the

case pending the Third Circuit’s decision in the Esschem case described above. In September 2019, the Zimmer Biomet parties filed a motion to stay the proceedings pending (1) the court’s decision on Esschem’s motion for summary judgment in the Esschem case described above and (2) the outcome of the U.S. International Trade Commission complaint filed by Heraeus asserting similar claims, described below under “Regulatory Matters, Government Investigations and Other Matters.” On May 2, 2020, the court granted the Zimmer Biomet parties’ motion to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the U.S. International Trade Commission complaint filed by Heraeus.

Other European Countries: Heraeus continues to pursue other related legal proceedings in Europe seeking various forms of relief, including injunctive relief and damages, against various Biomet-related and local Zimmer Biomet entities relating to the European Cements. On October 2, 2018, the Belgian Court of Appeal of Mons issued a judgment in favor of Heraeus relating to its request for past damages caused by the alleged misappropriation of its trade secrets, and an injunction preventing future sales of certain European Cements in Belgium (the “Belgian Decision”). We appealed this judgment to the Belgian Supreme Court. The Belgian Supreme Court dismissed our appeal in October 2019 and this decision is final. Heraeus filed a suit in Belgium concerning the continued sale of the European Cements with certain changed materials. Like its suit in Germany, Heraeus seeks an injunction on the basis that the continued use of the product names for the European Cements is misleading for customers and thus an act of unfair competition. On May 7, 2019, the Liège Commercial Court issued a judgment that Zimmer Biomet failed to inform its hospital and surgeon customers of the changes made to the composition of the cement with certain changed materials and ordered, as a sole remedy, that Zimmer Biomet send letters to those customers, which we have done. We and Heraeus have each filed an appeal to the judgment.

On February 13, 2019, a Norwegian court of first instance issued a judgment in favor of Heraeus on its claim for misappropriation of trade secrets. The court awarded damages of 19,500,000 NOK, or approximately $2.3 million, plus attorneys’ fees, and issued an injunction, which is not final and thus not currently being enforced, preventing Zimmer Biomet Norway from marketing in Norway bone cements identified with the current product names and bone cements making use of the trade secrets which were acknowledged in the Frankfurt Decision. We have appealed the Norwegian judgment to the court of second instance.

On October 29, 2019, an Italian court of first instance issued a judgment in favor of Heraeus on its claim of misappropriation of trade secrets, but did not yet order an award of damages. We filed a timely appeal of the decision.

On January 23, 2020, a Finnish Market Court issued a judgment partly in favor of Heraeus on its claim of misappropriation of certain trade secrets. Damage claims were not raised in the proceedings. We appealed the decision to the Finnish Supreme Court. On July 3, 2020, the Finnish Supreme Court declined to review the case, rendering the Market Court decision final.

Heraeus is pursuing damages and injunctive relief in France in an effort to prevent us from manufacturing, marketing and selling the European Cements (the “France Litigation”). The European Cements are manufactured at our facility in Valence, France. On December 11, 2018, a hearing was held in the France Litigation before the commercial court in Romans-sur-Isère. On May 23, 2019, the commercial court ruled in our favor. On July 12, 2019, Heraeus filed an appeal to the court of second instance in Grenoble, France. Although we are vigorously defending the France Litigation, the ultimate outcome is uncertain. An adverse ruling in the France Litigation could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We have accrued an estimated loss relating to the collective trade secret litigation, including estimated legal costs to defend. Damages relating to the Frankfurt Decision are subject to separate proceedings, and the Belgian court appointed an expert to determine the amount of damages related to the Belgian Decision. Thus, it is reasonably possible that our estimate of the loss we may incur may change in the future. Although we are vigorously defending these lawsuits, their ultimate resolution is uncertain.

Putative Securities Class Action: On December 2, 2016, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (Shah v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et al.), naming us, one of our officers and two of our now former officers as defendants. On June 28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a corrected amended complaint, naming as defendants, in addition to those previously named, current and former members of our Board of Directors, one additional officer, and the underwriters in connection with secondary offerings of our common stock by certain selling stockholders in 2016. On October 6, 2017, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the underwriters without prejudice. On October 8, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, naming as defendants, in addition to those current and former officers and Board members previously named, certain former stockholders of ours who sold shares of our common stock in secondary public offerings in 2016. We and our current and former officers and Board members named as defendants are sometimes hereinafter referred to as the “Zimmer Biomet Defendant group”. The former stockholders of ours who sold shares of our common stock in secondary public offerings in 2016 are sometimes hereinafter referred to as the “Private Equity Fund Defendant group”. The second amended complaint relates to a putative class action on behalf of persons who purchased our common stock between June 7, 2016 and November 7, 2016. The second amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making materially false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions about our compliance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regulations and our ability to continue to accelerate our organic revenue growth rate in the second half of 2016. The defendants filed their respective motions to dismiss on December 20, 2017, plaintiffs filed their omnibus response to the motions to dismiss on March 13, 2018 and the defendants filed their respective reply briefs on May 18, 2018. On September 27, 2018, the court denied the Zimmer Biomet Defendant group’s motion to dismiss in its

entirety. The court granted the Private Equity Fund Defendant group’s motion to dismiss, without prejudice. On October 9, 2018, the Zimmer Biomet Defendant group filed a motion (i) to amend the court’s order on the motion to certify two issues for interlocutory appeal, and (ii) to stay proceedings pending appeal. On February 21, 2019, that motion was denied. On April 11, 2019, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. On June 20, 2019, the Zimmer Biomet Defendant group filed its response. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief. Although we believe this lawsuit is without merit, during a mediation in December 2019, plaintiffs and defendants, along with Zimmer Biomet’s insurers, reached a settlement in principle to resolve the claims for $50.0 million. We made an accrual for the proposed settlement that we expect to be fully covered by our insurers. On May 21, 2020, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. On or before June 12, 2020, all responsible insurers made their payments to the qualified settlement fund. The final approval hearing is scheduled for September 3, 2020.

Shareholder Derivative Actions: On June 14, 2019 and July 29, 2019, two shareholder derivative actions, Green v. Begley et al. and Detectives Endowment Association Annuity Fund v. Begley et al., were filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware. On October 2, 2019 and October 11, 2019, two additional shareholder derivative actions, Karp v. Begley et al. and DiGaudio v. Begley et al., were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The plaintiff in each action seeks to maintain the action purportedly on our behalf against certain of our current and former directors and officers (the “individual defendants”) and certain former stockholders of ours who sold shares of our common stock in various secondary public offerings in 2016 (the “private equity fund defendants”). The plaintiff in each action alleges, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties against the individual defendants and insider trading against two individual defendants and the private equity fund defendants, based on substantially the same factual allegations as the putative federal securities class action referenced above (Shah v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et al.). On June 4, 2020, the plaintiffs in the Chancery Court actions filed a consolidated amended complaint adding three new counts and expanding the scope of the alleged material false statements. The plaintiffs do not seek damages from us, but instead request damages on our behalf from the defendants of an unspecified amount. The plaintiffs also seek attorneys’ fees, costs and other relief.

Regulatory Matters, Government Investigations and Other Matters

U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation: On March 5, 2019, Heraeus filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) against us and certain of our subsidiaries. The complaint alleges that Biomet misappropriated Heraeus’ trade secrets in the formulation and manufacture of two bone cement products now sold by Zimmer Biomet, both of which are imported from our Valence, France facility. Heraeus requested that the ITC institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders. On April 5, 2019, the ITC ordered an investigation be instituted into whether we have committed an “unfair act” in the importation, sale for importation, or sale after importation of certain bone cement products. An evidentiary hearing in front of an administrative law judge at the ITC was held in January 2020 and an Initial Determination was issued on May 6, 2020. In the Initial Determination, the administrative law judge held that we did not commit an “unfair act” in the importation, sale for importation, or sale after importation of the two challenged bone cement products, and thus we are not restricted from continuing to manufacture and sell the two challenged bone cement products in the United States. On July 13, 2020, the ITC issued notice of intent to review the Initial Determination in part and is expected to issue a Final Determination in September 2020. Thereafter, the Final Determination is subject to review on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by either or both of Heraeus and us. We cannot currently predict the ultimate outcome of this investigation after review by the ITC and any appeals, but an adverse outcome in this ITC proceeding could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

FDA warning letters: In August 2018, we received a warning letter from the FDA related to observed non-conformities with current good manufacturing practice requirements of the FDA’s Quality System Regulation (21 CFR Part 820) (“QSR”) at our legacy Biomet manufacturing facility in Warsaw, Indiana (this facility is sometimes referred to in this report as the “Warsaw North Campus”). In September 2012, we received a warning letter from the FDA citing concerns relating to certain processes pertaining to products manufactured at our Ponce, Puerto Rico manufacturing facility. We have provided detailed responses to the FDA as to our corrective actions and will continue to work expeditiously to address the issues identified by the FDA during inspections in Warsaw and Ponce. As of June 30, 2020, the Warsaw and Ponce warning letters remained pending. Until the violations cited in the pending warning letters are corrected, we may be subject to additional regulatory action by the FDA, as described more fully below. Additionally, requests for Certificates to Foreign Governments related to products manufactured at certain of our facilities may not be granted and premarket approval applications for Class III devices to which the QSR deviations at these facilities are reasonably related will not be approved until the violations have been corrected. In addition to responding to the warning letters described above, we are in the process of addressing various FDA Form 483 inspectional observations at certain of our manufacturing facilities, including observations issued by the FDA following an inspection of the Warsaw North Campus in January 2020, which inspection the FDA has classified as Voluntary Action Indicated (“VAI”). The ultimate outcome of these matters is presently uncertain. Among other available regulatory actions, the FDA may impose operating restrictions, including a ceasing of operations, at one or more facilities, enjoining and restraining certain violations of applicable law pertaining to products, seizure of products and assessing civil or criminal penalties against our officers, employees or us. The FDA could also issue a corporate warning letter or a recidivist warning letter or negotiate the entry of a consent decree of permanent injunction with us. The FDA may also recommend prosecution by the U.S.

Department of Justice (“DOJ”). Any adverse regulatory action, depending on its magnitude, may restrict us from effectively manufacturing, marketing and selling our products and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Deferred Prosecution Agreement (“DPA”) relating to U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) matters: On January 12, 2017, we resolved previously-disclosed FCPA matters involving Biomet and certain of its subsidiaries. As part of the settlement, (i) Biomet resolved matters with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) through an administrative cease-and-desist order (the “Order”); (ii) we entered into a DPA with the DOJ; and (iii) JERDS Luxembourg Holding S.à r.l. (“JERDS”), the direct parent company of Biomet 3i Mexico SA de CV and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Biomet, entered into a plea agreement (the “Plea Agreement”) with the DOJ. The conduct underlying these resolutions occurred prior to our acquisition of Biomet.

Pursuant to the terms of the Order, Biomet resolved claims with the SEC related to violations of the books and records, internal controls and anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA by disgorging profits to the U.S. government in an aggregate amount of approximately $6.5 million, inclusive of pre-judgment interest, and paying a civil penalty in the amount of $6.5 million (collectively, the “Civil Settlement Payments”). We also agreed to pay a criminal penalty of approximately $17.5 million (together with the Civil Settlement Payments, the “Settlement Payments”) to the U.S. government pursuant to the terms of the DPA. We made the Settlement Payments in January 2017 and, as previously disclosed, had accrued, as of June 24, 2015, the closing date of the Biomet merger, an amount sufficient to cover this matter. In addition, under its Plea Agreement with the DOJ, JERDS pleaded guilty on January 13, 2017 to aiding and abetting a violation of the books and records provision of the FCPA. In light of the DPA we entered into, JERDS paid only a nominal assessment and no criminal penalty.

Under the DPA, which has a term of three years, the DOJ agreed to defer criminal prosecution of us in connection with the charged violation of the internal controls provision of the FCPA as long as we comply with the terms of the DPA. In addition, we are subject to oversight by an independent compliance monitor, who was appointed effective as of August 7, 2017. On July 17, 2020, the independent compliance monitor submitted a letter to the SEC and DOJ certifying that our compliance program, including its policies and procedures, is reasonably designed and implemented to prevent and detect violations of the FCPA and is functioning effectively. We expect the monitorship to conclude no later than August 7, 2020 and the charges against us to be dismissed with prejudice.

If we do not comply with the terms of the DPA, we could be subject to prosecution for violating the internal controls provisions of the FCPA and the conduct of Biomet and its subsidiaries described in the DPA, which conduct pre-dated our acquisition of Biomet, as well as any new or continuing violations. We could also be subject to exclusion by the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services from participation in federal healthcare programs, including Medicaid and Medicare. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.