| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block] | Commitments and Contingencies Legal Contingencies The legal contingencies described in this footnote relate primarily to Wright Medical Technology, Inc. (WMT), an indirect subsidiary of Wright Medical Group N.V., and are not necessarily applicable to Wright Medical Group N.V. or other affiliated entities. Maintaining separate legal entities within our corporate structure is intended to ring-fence liabilities. We believe our ring-fenced structure should preclude corporate veil-piercing efforts against entities whose assets are not associated with particular claims. As described below, our business is subject to various contingencies, including patent and other litigation, product liability claims, and a government inquiry. These contingencies could result in losses, including damages, fines, or penalties, any of which could be substantial, as well as criminal charges. Although such matters are inherently unpredictable, and negative outcomes or verdicts can occur, we believe we have significant defenses in all of them, and are vigorously defending all of them. However, we could incur judgments, pay settlements, or revise our expectations regarding the outcome of any matter. Such developments, if any, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which applicable amounts are accrued, or on our cash flows in the period in which amounts are paid, however, unless otherwise indicated, we do not believe any of them will have a material adverse effect on our financial position. Our legal contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and, therefore, determining the likelihood of a loss or the measurement of a loss can be complex. We have accrued for losses that are both probable and reasonably estimable. Unless otherwise indicated, we are unable to estimate the range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued. Our assessment process relies on estimates and assumptions that may prove to be incomplete or inaccurate. Unanticipated events and circumstances may occur that could cause us to change our estimates and assumptions. Governmental Inquiries On August 3, 2012, we received a subpoena from the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of Tennessee requesting records and documentation relating to our PROFEMUR ® series of hip replacement devices. The subpoena covers the period from January 1, 2000 to August 2, 2012. We continue to cooperate with the investigation. Patent Litigation In June 2013, Anglefix, LLC filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, alleging that our ORTHOLOC ® products infringe Anglefix’s asserted patent. On April 14, 2014, we filed a request for Inter Partes Review (IPR) with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In October 2014, the Court stayed the case pending outcome of the IPR. On June 30, 2015, the Patent Office Board entered judgment in our favor as to all patent claims at issue in the IPR. Following the conclusion of the IPR, the District Court lifted the stay, and we have been continuing with our defense as to remaining patent claims asserted by Anglefix. On June 27, 2016, the Court granted in part our motion for summary judgment on Anglefix’s lack of standing and gave Anglefix 30 days to join the University of North Carolina (UNC) as a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit. On July 25, 2016, Anglefix filed a motion asking the Court to accept a waiver of claims by UNC as a substitute for joining UNC as a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit. The Court denied Anglefix’s motion, but granted leave for additional time to properly join UNC as co-plaintiff. Anglefix moved to add UNC as co-plaintiff on September 15, 2016. We opposed the motion and, on November 15, 2016, the Court allowed the motion, and subsequently directed Anglefix and UNC to file an amended complaint by January 18, 2017. On February 1, 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed by Anglefix and UNC. The Court has not yet acted on that motion. We have filed motions for summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the remaining patent claims asserted by Anglefix and a motion to exclude testimony by Anglefix’s technical expert. Anglefix has filed a motion for summary judgment of infringement of certain of the remaining asserted patent claims. The Court heard oral argument on those motions on January 31, 2017. On September 23, 2014, Spineology filed a patent infringement lawsuit, Case No. 0:14-cv-03767, in the U.S. District Court in Minnesota, alleging that our X-REAM ® bone reamer infringes U.S. Patent No. RE42,757 entitled “EXPANDABLE REAMER.” In January 2015, on the deadline for service of its complaint, Spineology dismissed its complaint without prejudice and filed a new, identical complaint. We filed an answer to the new complaint with the Court on April 27, 2015. The Court conducted a Markman hearing on March 23, 2016. Mediation was held on August 11, 2016, but no agreement could be reached. The Court issued a Markman decision on August 30, 2016, in which it found all asserted product claims invalid as indefinite under applicable patent laws and construed several additional claim terms. The parties have completed fact and expert discovery with respect to the remaining asserted method claims. We have filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the remaining asserted patent claims and motions to exclude testimony from Spineology’s technical and damages experts. Spineology has filed a motion for summary judgment of infringement. The Court has indicated that it will decide those motions based on the parties’ written submissions. On September 13, 2016, we filed a civil action, Case No. 2:16-cv-02737-JPM, against Spineology in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee alleging breach of contract, breach of implied warranty against infringement, and seeking a judicial declaration of indemnification from Spineology for patent infringement claims brought against us stemming from our sale and/or use of certain expandable reamers purchased from Spineology. Spineology filed a motion to dismiss on October 17, 2016, but withdrew the motion on November 28, 2016. On December 7, 2016, Spineology filed an answer to our complaint and counterclaims, including counterclaims relating to a 2004 non-disclosure agreement between Spineology and WMT. On December 28, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaims relating to that 2004 agreement. On January 4, 2017, Spineology filed a motion for summary judgment on certain claims set forth in our complaint. We have opposed that motion. On January 27, 2017, we filed a motion for summary judgment on certain issues pertaining to our indemnification claims. Spineology has opposed that motion. On March 1, 2016, Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation (MTF) filed suit against Solana and WMT in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that the TenFUSE PIP product infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,432,436 entitled “Partially Demineralized Cortical Bone Constructs.” On May 25, 2016, we agreed to waive service of MTF’s complaint. Following a series of court-ordered extensions of time, we filed our answer to MTF’s complaint and counterclaims on December 5, 2016. In the first quarter of 2017, we entered into a settlement agreement with MTF to settle the litigation for an immaterial amount. As a result, the litigation has been dismissed with prejudice. In August 2016, we received a letter from KFx Medical Corporation (KFx) alleging that a legacy Tornier product (the Piton Suture Anchor) infringes one of KFx’s patents when used in knotless double row tissue fixation techniques. On April 6, 2017, we filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:17-cv-00384, seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of United States Patent Nos. 7,585,311; 8,100,942; and 8,109,969. On April 20, 2017, KFx filed an answer and counterclaim alleging we indirectly infringe, and induce infringement of, these patents. Product Liability We have received claims for personal injury against us associated with fractures of our PROFEMUR ® long titanium modular neck product (PROFEMUR ® Claims). As of March 26, 2017 there were 25 pending U.S. lawsuits and 57 pending non-U.S. lawsuits alleging such claims. The overall fracture rate for the product is low and the fractures appear, at least in part, to relate to patient demographics. Beginning in 2009, we began offering a cobalt-chrome version of our PROFEMUR ® modular neck, which has greater strength characteristics than the alternative titanium version. Historically, we have reflected our liability for these claims as part of our standard product liability accruals on a case-by-case basis. However, during the quarter ended September 30, 2011, as a result of an increase in the number and monetary amount of these claims, management estimated our liability to patients in the United States and Canada who have previously required a revision following a fracture of a PROFEMUR ® long titanium modular neck, or who may require a revision in the future. Management has estimated that this aggregate liability ranges from approximately $22.4 million to $26.2 million . Any claims associated with this product outside of the United States and Canada, or for any other products, will be managed as part of our standard product liability accrual methodology on a case-by-case basis. Due to the uncertainty within our aggregate range of loss resulting from the estimation of the number of claims and related monetary payments, we have recorded a liability of $22.4 million , which represents the low-end of our estimated aggregate range of loss. We have classified $12.9 million of this liability as current in “Accrued expenses and other current liabilities,” as we expect to pay such claims within the next twelve months, and $9.5 million as non-current in “Other liabilities” on our consolidated balance sheet. We expect to pay the majority of these claims within the next three years. We are aware that MicroPort has recalled certain sizes of its cobalt chrome modular neck products as a result of alleged fractures. As of March 26, 2017 , there were four pending U.S. lawsuits and six pending non-U.S. lawsuits against us alleging personal injury resulting from the fracture of a cobalt chrome modular neck. These claims will be managed as part of our standard product liability accrual methodology on a case-by-case basis. We have maintained product liability insurance coverage on a claims-made basis. During the quarter ended March 31, 2013, we received a customary reservation of rights from our primary product liability insurance carrier asserting that present and future claims related to fractures of our PROFEMUR ® titanium modular neck hip products and which allege certain types of injury (Titanium Modular Neck Claims) would be covered as a single occurrence under the policy year the first such claim was asserted. The effect of this coverage position would be to place Titanium Modular Neck Claims into a single prior policy year in which applicable claims-made coverage was available, subject to the overall policy limits then in effect. Management agrees with the assertion that the Titanium Modular Neck Claims should be treated as a single occurrence, but notified the carrier that it disputed the carrier's selection of available policy years. During the second quarter of 2013, we received confirmation from the primary carrier confirming their agreement with our policy year determination. Based on our insurer's treatment of Titanium Modular Neck Claims as a single occurrence, we increased our estimate of the total probable insurance recovery related to Titanium Modular Neck Claims by $19.4 million , and recognized such additional recovery as a reduction to our selling, general and administrative expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2013, within results of discontinued operations. In the quarter ended June 30, 2013, we received payment from the primary insurance carrier of $5 million . In the quarter ended September 30, 2013, we received payment of $10 million from the next insurance carrier in the tower. We have requested, but not yet received, payment of the remaining $25 million from the third insurance carrier in the tower for that policy period. The policies with the second and third carrier in this tower are “follow form” policies and management believes the third carrier should follow the coverage position taken by the primary and secondary carriers. On September 29, 2015, that third carrier asserted that the terms and conditions identified in its reservation of rights will preclude coverage for the Titanium Modular Neck Claims. We strongly dispute the carrier's position and, in accordance with the dispute resolution provisions of the policy, have initiated an arbitration proceeding in London, England seeking payment of these funds. Pursuant to applicable accounting standards, we reduced our insurance receivable balance for this claim to $0 , and recorded a $25 million charge within "Net loss from discontinued operations" during the year ended December 27, 2015. The arbitration proceeding is ongoing. Claims for personal injury have also been made against us associated with our metal-on-metal hip products (primarily our CONSERVE ® product line). The pre-trial management of certain of these claims has been consolidated in the federal court system, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under multi-district litigation (MDL) and certain other claims by the Judicial Counsel Coordinated Proceedings (JCCP) in state court in Los Angeles County, California (collectively the Consolidated Metal-on-Metal Claims). As of March 26, 2017 , there were approximately 1,250 lawsuits pending in the MDL and JCCP, and an additional 50 cases pending in various state courts. As of that date, we have also entered into approximately 1,000 so called "tolling agreements" with potential claimants who have not yet filed suit. The number of lawsuits pending in the MDL and JCCP and tolling agreements disclosed above includes the claims that have been resolved pursuant to the Master Settlement Agreement discussed below. Based on presently available information, we believe at least 350 of these lawsuits allege claims involving bilateral implants. As of March 26, 2017 , there were also approximately 50 non-U.S. lawsuits pending. We believe we have data that supports the efficacy and safety of our metal-on-metal hip products. Every metal-on-metal hip case involves fundamental issues of law, science and medicine that often are uncertain, that continue to evolve, and which present contested facts and issues that can differ significantly from case to case. Such contested facts and issues include medical causation, individual patient characteristics, surgery specific factors, statutes of limitation, and the existence of actual, provable injury. The first bellwether trial in the MDL commenced on November 9, 2015 in Atlanta, Georgia. On November 24, 2015, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and awarded the plaintiff $1 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. We believe there were significant trial irregularities and vigorously contested the trial result. On December 28, 2015, we filed a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial or a reduction of damages awarded. On April 5, 2016, the trial judge issued an order reducing the punitive damage award from $10 million to $1.1 million , but otherwise denied our motion. On May 4, 2016, we filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit heard oral arguments on January 26, 2017 and on March 20, 2017, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s verdict. On April 10, 2017, we filed a petition for rehearing en banc or for panel rehearing. We have maintained our accrual for this verdict in the amount of $2.1 million within “Accrued expenses and other current liabilities.” The first bellwether trial in the JCCP, which was scheduled to commence on October 31, 2016, and subsequently rescheduled to January 9, 2017, was settled for an immaterial amount. The first state court metal-on-metal hip trial not part of the MDL or JCCP commenced on October 24, 2016, in St. Louis, Missouri. On November 3, 2016, the jury returned a verdict in our favor. The plaintiff has appealed. On November 1, 2016, WMT entered into a Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) with Court-appointed attorneys representing plaintiffs in the MDL and JCCP. Under the terms of the MSA, the parties agreed to settle 1,292 specifically identified claims associated with CONSERVE ® , DYNASTY ® and LINEAGE ® products that meet the eligibility requirements of the MSA and are either pending in the MDL or JCCP, or subject to court-approved tolling agreements in the MDL or JCCP, for a settlement amount of $240 million . The $240 million settlement amount is a maximum settlement based on the pool of 1,292 specific, existing claims comprised of an identified mix of CONSERVE ® , DYNASTY ® and LINEAGE ® products (Initial Settlement Pool), with a value assigned to each product type, resulting in a total settlement of $240 million for the 1,292 claims in the Initial Settlement Pool. The actual settlement may be less, depending on several factors including the mix of products and claimants in the final settlement pool (Final Settlement Pool) and the number of claimants electing to “opt-out” of the settlement. Actual settlements paid to individual claimants will be determined under the claims administration procedures contained in the MSA and may be more or less than the amounts used to calculate the $240 million settlement for the 1,292 claims in the Initial Settlement Pool. However in no event will variations in actual settlement amounts payable to individual claimants affect WMT’s maximum settlement obligation of $240 million or the manner in which it may be reduced due to opt outs, final product mix, or elimination of ineligible claims. If it is determined a claim in the Initial Settlement Pool is ineligible due to failure to meet the eligibility criteria of the MSA, such claim will be removed and, where possible, replaced with a new eligible claim involving the same product, with the goal of having the number and mix of claims in the Final Settlement Pool (before opt-outs) equal, as nearly as possible, the number and mix of claims in the Initial Settlement Pool. Additionally, if any DYNASTY ® or LINEAGE ® claims in the Final Settlement Pool are determined to have been misidentified as CONSERVE ® claims, or vice versa, the total settlement amount will be adjusted based on the value for each product type (not to exceed $240 million). The MSA contains specific eligibility requirements and establishes procedures for proof and administration of claims, negotiation and execution of individual settlement agreements, determination of the final total settlement amount, and funding of individual settlement amounts by WMT. Eligibility requirements include, without limitation, that the claimant has a claim pending or tolled in the MDL or JCCP, that the claimant has undergone a revision surgery within eight years of the original implantation surgery, and that the claim has not been identified by WMT as having possible statute of limitation issues. Claimants who have had bilateral revision surgeries will be counted as two claims but only to the extent both claims separately satisfy all eligibility criteria. The MSA includes a 95% opt-in requirement, meaning the MSA could have been terminated by WMT prior to any settlement disbursement if claimants holding greater than 5% of eligible claims in the Final Settlement Pool elected to “opt-out” of the settlement. WMT has confirmed that of the 1,292 eligible claims, 1,279 opted to participate in the settlement and 13 opted out, resulting in a final opt-in percentage of approximately 99%, well in excess of the required 95% threshold. On March 2, 2017, WMT agreed to replace the 13 opt-out claims with 13 additional claims that would have been eligible to participate in the MSA but for the 1,292 claim limit, bringing the total MSA settlement to the maximum limit of $240 million to settle 1,292 claims. Due to apparent demand from additional claimants excluded from settlement because of the 1,292 claim ceiling, but otherwise eligible for participation, WMT has agreed in principle to settle an additional 53 such claims, on terms substantially identical to the MSA settlement terms, for a maximum additional settlement amount of $9.4 million . WMT has escrowed $150 million to secure its obligations under the MSA. As additional security, Wright Medical Group N.V., the indirect parent company of WMT, agreed to guarantee WMT’s obligations under the MSA. The MSA (which reference includes the supplemental settlements described above) was entered into solely as a compromise of the disputed claims being settled and is not evidence that any claim has merit nor is it an admission of wrongdoing or liability by WMT. WMT will continue to vigorously defend metal-on-metal hip claims not settled pursuant to the MSA. As of March 26, 2017, we estimate there were approximately 750 outstanding metal-on-metal hip revision claims that would not be included in the MSA settlement, including approximately 250 claims with an implant duration of more than eight years, approximately 300 claims subject to possible statute of limitations preclusion, approximately 50 claims pending in U.S courts other than the MDL and JCCP, approximately 50 claims pending in non-U.S. courts, and approximately 100 claims (inclusive of the 53 claims referred to above) that would be eligible for inclusion in the settlement but for the participation limitations contained in the MSA. We also estimate that there were approximately 650 outstanding metal-on-metal hip non-revision claims as of March 26, 2017. These non-revision cases are excluded from the MSA. The parties continue to mediate the unresolved claims. As of March 26, 2017 , our accrual for metal-on-metal claims totaled $267.1 million , of which $253.2 million is included in our condensed consolidated balance sheet within “Accrued expenses and other current liabilities” and $13.9 million is included within “Other liabilities.” Our accrual is based on (i) case by case accruals for specific cases where facts and circumstances warrant, including the $2.1 million accrual associated with the MDL bellwether verdict, and (ii) the implied settlement values for eligible claims under the MSA. We are unable to reasonably estimate the high-end of a possible range of loss for claims which elected to opt-out of the MSA settlement. Claims we can confirm would meet MSA eligibility criteria but are excluded from settlement due to the $240 million maximum settlement cap, or because they are state cases not part of the MDL or JCCP, have been accrued as though included in the settlement. Due to the general uncertainties surrounding all metal-on metal claims as noted above, as well as insufficient information about individual claims, we are presently unable to reasonably estimate a range of loss for revision claims that (i) do not meet MSA eligibility criteria, or (ii) are future claims; hence we have not accrued for these claims at the present time. However, we believe the high-end of a possible range of loss for existing revision claims that do not meet MSA eligibility criteria will not, on an average per case basis, exceed the average per case accrual we have taken for revision claims we can confirm do meet MSA eligibility criteria. Future claims will be evaluated for accrual on a case by case basis using the accrual methodologies described above (which could change if future facts and circumstances warrant). We have maintained product liability insurance coverage on a claims-made basis. During the quarter ended September 30, 2012, we received a customary reservation of rights from our primary product liability insurance carrier asserting that certain present and future claims which allege certain types of injury related to our CONSERVE ® metal-on-metal hip products (CONSERVE ® Claims) would be covered as a single occurrence under the policy year the first such claim was asserted. The effect of this coverage position would be to place CONSERVE ® Claims into a single prior policy year in which applicable claims-made coverage was available, subject to the overall policy limits then in effect. Management agrees that there is insurance coverage for the CONSERVE ® Claims, but has notified the carrier that it disputes the carrier's characterization of the CONSERVE ® Claims as a single occurrence. In June 2014, St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company (Travelers), which was an excess carrier in our coverage towers across multiple policy years, filed a declaratory judgment action in Tennessee state court naming us and certain of our other insurance carriers as defendants and asking the court to rule on the rights and responsibilities of the parties with regard to the CONSERVE ® Claims. Among other things, Travelers appeared to dispute our contention that the CONSERVE ® Claims arise out of more than a single occurrence thereby triggering multiple policy periods of coverage. Travelers further sought a determination as to the applicable policy period triggered by the alleged single occurrence. We filed a separate lawsuit in state court in California for declaratory judgment against certain carriers and breach of contract against the primary carrier, and moved to dismiss or stay the Tennessee action on a number of grounds, including that California is the most appropriate jurisdiction. During the third quarter of 2014, the California Court granted Travelers' motion to stay our California action. On April 29, 2016, we filed a dispositive motion seeking partial judgment in our favor in the Tennessee action. That motion is pending and is scheduled for oral argument on June 23, 2017, after the parties complete discovery regarding certain issues relating to the pending motion. On June 10, 2016, Travelers withdrew its motion for summary judgment in the Tennessee action. One of the other insurance companies in the Tennessee action has stated that it will re-file a similar motion in the future. On October 28, 2016, WMT and Wright Medical Group, Inc. (Wright Entities), entered into a Settlement Agreement, Indemnity and Hold Harmless Agreement and Policy Buyback Agreement (Insurance Settlement Agreement) with a subgroup of three insurance carriers, namely Columbia Casualty Company, Travelers and AXIS Surplus Lines Insurance Company (collectively, the Three Settling Insurers), pursuant to which the Three Settling Insurers paid WMT an aggregate of $60 million (in addition to $10 million previously paid by Columbia) in a lump sum. This amount is in full satisfaction of all potential liability of the Three Settling Insurers relating to metal-on-metal hip and similar metal ion release claims, including but not limited to all claims in the MDL and the JCCP, and all claims asserted by WMT against the Three Settling Insurers in the Tennessee action described above. On December 13, 2016, we filed a motion in the Tennessee action described above to include allegations of bad faith against the primary insurance carrier. The motion was subsequently amended on February 8, 2017 to add similar bad faith claims against the remaining excess carriers. On April 13, 2017, the court denied our motion, without prejudice to our right to re-assert the motion at a later time. As part of the settlement, the Three Settling Insurers bought back from WMT their policies in the five policy years beginning with the August 15, 2007- August 15, 2008 policy year (Repurchased Policy Years). Consequently, the Wright Entities have no further coverage from the Three Settling Insurers for any present or future claims falling in the Repurchased Policy Years, or any other period in which a released claim is asserted. Additionally, the Insurance Settlement Agreement contains a so-called most favored nation provision which could require us to refund a pro rata portion of the settlement amount if we voluntarily enter into a settlement with the remaining carriers in the Repurchased Policy Years on certain terms more favorable than analogous terms in the Insurance Settlement Agreement. The Tennessee action will continue as to the remaining defendant insurers other than the Three Settling Insurers. The amount due to the Wright Entities under the Insurance Settlement Agreement was paid in the fourth quarter of 2016 and the Three Settling Insurers have been dismissed from the Tennessee action. Management has recorded an insurance receivable of $8.7 million for the probable recovery of spending from the remaining carriers (other than the Three Settling Carriers) in excess of our retention for a single occurrence. As of March 26, 2017 , we have received $71.7 million of insurance proceeds, and our insurance carriers have paid a total of $4.6 million directly to claimants in connection with various settlements, which represents amounts undisputed by the carriers. Our acceptance of these proceeds was not a waiver of any other claim we may have against the insurance carriers. However, the amount we ultimately receive will depend on the outcome of our dispute with the remaining carriers (other than the Three Settling Carriers) concerning the number of policy years available. We believe our contracts with the insurance carriers are enforceable for these claims; and, therefore, we believe it is probable we will receive additional recoveries from the remaining carriers. Settlement discussions with the remaining insurance carriers continue. 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 our accrual for contingencies could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flow. Future revisions to our estimates of these provisions could materially impact our results of operations and financial position. We use the best information available to determine the level of accrued product liabilities, and believe our accruals are adequate. In June 2015, a jury returned a $4.4 million verdict against us in a case involving a fractured hip implant stem sold prior to the MicroPort closing. This was a one-of-a-kind case unrelated to the modular neck fracture cases we have been reporting. There are no other cases pending related to this component, nor are we aware of other instances where this component has fractured. In September 2015, the trial judge reduced the jury verdict to $1.025 million and indicated that if the plaintiff did not accept the reduced award he would schedule a new trial solely on the issue of damages. The plaintiff elected not to accept the reduced damage award, and both parties have appealed. The Court has not set a date for a new trial on the issue of damages and we do not expect it will do so until the appeals are adjudicated. We will maintain our current $4.4 million accrual as a probable liability until the matter is resolved. The $4.4 million probable liability associated with this matter is reflected within “Accrued expenses and other current liabilities,” and a $4 million receivable associated with the probable recovery from product liability insurance is reflected within “Other current assets.” Other In addition to those noted above, we are subject to various other legal proceedings, product liability claims, corporate governance, and other matters which arise in the ordinary course of business. |
