Legal Proceedings	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	Legal Proceedings The Company is involved in a number of lawsuits incidental to its business, including environmental-related litigation and routine litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. Although it is difficult to predict the ultimate outcome of these cases, the Company believes, except as discussed below, that any ultimate liability would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Environmental Matters The Company is a potentially responsible party ("PRP") pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (commonly known as "Superfund") and similar state and foreign laws in proceedings associated with seventeen sites around the United States and one in Brazil. These proceedings were instituted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and certain state and foreign environmental agencies at various times beginning in 1983. Superfund and similar state and foreign laws create liability for investigation and remediation in response to releases of hazardous substances in the environment. Under these statutes, joint and several liability may be imposed on waste generators, site owners and operators, and others regardless of fault. Although these regulations could require the Company to remove or mitigate the effects on the environment at various sites, perform remediation work at such sites, or pay damages for loss of use and non-use values, the Company expects its liability in these proceedings to be limited to monetary damages. The Company expects its future liability relative to these sites to be insignificant, individually and in the aggregate. The Company has accrued an amount that it believes to be adequate to cover its exposure. São Paulo Tax Dispute Dixie Toga Ltda ("Dixie Toga"), acquired by the Company on January 5, 2005, is involved in a tax dispute with the City of São Paulo, Brazil ("City"). The City imposes a tax on the rendering of printing services. The City has assessed this city services tax on the production and sale of printed labels and packaging products. Dixie Toga, along with a number of other packaging companies, disagrees and contends that the city services tax is not applicable to its products and that the products are subject only to the state value added tax ("VAT"). Under Brazilian law, state VAT and city services tax are mutually exclusive and the same transaction can be subject to only one of those taxes. Based on a ruling from the State of São Paulo, advice from legal counsel, and long standing business practice, Dixie Toga appealed the city services tax and instead continued to collect and pay only the state VAT. The City of São Paulo disagreed and assessed Dixie Toga the city services tax for the years 1991-1995. The assessments for those years are estimated to be approximately $49.5 million at the date the Company acquired Dixie Toga, translated to U.S. dollars at the June 30, 2013 exchange rate. Dixie Toga challenged the assessments and ultimately litigated the issue. A decision by the Lower Tax Court in the city of São Paulo canceled all of the assessments for the years 1991-1995. The City of São Paulo, the State of São Paulo, and Dixie Toga had each appealed parts of the lower court decision. On February 8, 2010, the São Paulo Court of Justice issued a Decision in favor of Dixie Toga. This Decision has been appealed by the City of São Paulo. In the event of a successful appeal by the City and an adverse resolution, the estimated amount for these years could be substantially increased for additional interest, monetary adjustments and costs from the date of acquisition. The City has also assessed Dixie Toga and Itap Bemis Ltda., a Dixie Toga subsidiary ("Itap Bemis"), the city services tax for the years 1996-2001. The assessments for those years were upheld at the administrative level and are being challenged by the companies in the judicial courts. The assessments at the date of acquisition for these years for tax and penalties (exclusive of interest and monetary adjustments) are estimated to be approximately $7.5 million for Itap Bemis and $24.0 million for Dixie Toga, translated to U.S. dollars at the June 30, 2013 exchange rate. In the event of an adverse resolution, the estimated amounts for these years could be increased by $48.9 million for Itap Bemis and $142.4 million for Dixie Toga for interest, monetary adjustments and costs. The City has also assessed the city services tax for the subsequent years 2004-2009. The assessments for those years were upheld at the administrative level and are being challenged by the companies in the judicial courts. The assessments for tax, penalties, and interest are estimated to be approximately $47.7 million, translated to U.S. dollars at the June 30, 2013 exchange rate. The Company strongly disagrees with the City’s position and intends to vigorously challenge any assessments by the City of São Paulo. The Company is unable at this time to predict the ultimate outcome of the controversy and as such has not recorded any liability related to this matter. An adverse resolution could be material to the consolidated results of operations and/or cash flows of the period in which the matter is resolved. Brazil Investigation On September 18, 2007, the Secretariat of Economic Law ("SDE"), a governmental agency in Brazil, initiated an investigation into possible anti-competitive practices in the Brazilian flexible packaging industry against a number of Brazilian companies including a Dixie Toga subsidiary. The investigation relates to periods prior to the Company’s acquisition of control of Dixie Toga and its subsidiaries. Given the nature of the proceedings, the Company is unable at the present time to predict the outcome of this matter. Multiemployer Defined Benefit Pension Plans The Company contributes to three multiemployer defined benefit pension plans based on obligations arising under collective bargaining agreements covering union-represented employees. The Company does not directly manage these multiemployer pension plans, which are generally managed by boards of trustees, half of whom are appointed by the unions and the other half by employers contributing to the plans. Based on the information provided by the plan administrators, the Company is aware that these plans are underfunded. In addition, pension-related legislation requires underfunded pension plans to improve their funding ratios within prescribed intervals based on the level of their underfunding. As a result, the Company expects its contributions to these plans to increase in the future. Under current law regarding multiemployer defined benefit plans, a plan’s termination, the Company’s voluntary partial or full withdrawal, or the mass withdrawal of all contributing employers from any underfunded multiemployer pension plan would require the Company to make payments to the plan for the Company’s proportionate share of the multiemployer pension plan’s unfunded vested liabilities. In addition, if a multiemployer defined benefit pension plan fails to satisfy certain minimum funding requirements, the IRS may impose a nondeductible excise tax of five percent on the amount of the accumulated funding deficiency for those employers contributing to the fund. The Company recorded charges related to the planned withdrawal from the GCIU — Employee Retirement Fund in the fourth quarter of 2011 and the second quarter of 2012 as part of the Company’s 2011 and 2012 facility consolidation programs. The expense recorded represents the Company’s best estimate of the expected settlement of these planned withdrawal liabilities. While it is not possible to quantify the potential impact of future actions, further reductions in participation or withdrawal from these multiemployer pension plans could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s consolidated annual results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

Legal Proceedings

The Company is involved in a number of lawsuits incidental to its business, including environmental-related litigation and routine litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. Although it is difficult to predict the ultimate outcome of these cases, the Company believes, except as discussed below, that any ultimate liability would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

Environmental Matters

The Company is a potentially responsible party ("PRP") pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (commonly known as "Superfund") and similar state and foreign laws in proceedings associated with seventeen sites around the United States and one in Brazil. These proceedings were instituted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and certain state and foreign environmental agencies at various times beginning in 1983. Superfund and similar state and foreign laws create liability for investigation and remediation in response to releases of hazardous substances in the environment. Under these statutes, joint and several liability may be imposed on waste generators, site owners and operators, and others regardless of fault. Although these regulations could require the Company to remove or mitigate the effects on the environment at various sites, perform remediation work at such sites, or pay damages for loss of use and non-use values, the Company expects its liability in these proceedings to be limited to monetary damages. The Company expects its future liability relative to these sites to be insignificant, individually and in the aggregate. The Company has accrued an amount that it believes to be adequate to cover its exposure.

São Paulo Tax Dispute

Dixie Toga Ltda ("Dixie Toga"), acquired by the Company on January 5, 2005, is involved in a tax dispute with the City of São Paulo, Brazil ("City"). The City imposes a tax on the rendering of printing services. The City has assessed this city services tax on the production and sale of printed labels and packaging products. Dixie Toga, along with a number of other packaging companies, disagrees and contends that the city services tax is not applicable to its products and that the products are subject only to the state value added tax ("VAT"). Under Brazilian law, state VAT and city services tax are mutually exclusive and the same transaction can be subject to only one of those taxes. Based on a ruling from the State of São Paulo, advice from legal counsel, and long standing business practice, Dixie Toga appealed the city services tax and instead continued to collect and pay only the state VAT.

The City of São Paulo disagreed and assessed Dixie Toga the city services tax for the years 1991-1995. The assessments for those years are estimated to be approximately $49.5 million at the date the Company acquired Dixie Toga, translated to U.S. dollars at the June 30, 2013 exchange rate. Dixie Toga challenged the assessments and ultimately litigated the issue. A decision by the Lower Tax Court in the city of São Paulo canceled all of the assessments for the years 1991-1995. The City of São Paulo, the State of São Paulo, and Dixie Toga had each appealed parts of the lower court decision. On February 8, 2010, the São Paulo Court of Justice issued a Decision in favor of Dixie Toga. This Decision has been appealed by the City of São Paulo. In the event of a successful appeal by the City and an adverse resolution, the estimated amount for these years could be substantially increased for additional interest, monetary adjustments and costs from the date of acquisition.

The City has also assessed Dixie Toga and Itap Bemis Ltda., a Dixie Toga subsidiary ("Itap Bemis"), the city services tax for the years 1996-2001. The assessments for those years were upheld at the administrative level and are being challenged by the companies in the judicial courts. The assessments at the date of acquisition for these years for tax and penalties (exclusive of interest and monetary adjustments) are estimated to be approximately $7.5 million for Itap Bemis and $24.0 million for Dixie Toga, translated to U.S. dollars at the June 30, 2013 exchange rate. In the event of an adverse resolution, the estimated amounts for these years could be increased by $48.9 million for Itap Bemis and $142.4 million for Dixie Toga for interest, monetary adjustments and costs.

The City has also assessed the city services tax for the subsequent years 2004-2009. The assessments for those years were upheld at the administrative level and are being challenged by the companies in the judicial courts. The assessments for tax, penalties, and interest are estimated to be approximately $47.7 million, translated to U.S. dollars at the June 30, 2013 exchange rate.

The Company strongly disagrees with the City’s position and intends to vigorously challenge any assessments by the City of São Paulo. The Company is unable at this time to predict the ultimate outcome of the controversy and as such has not recorded any liability related to this matter. An adverse resolution could be material to the consolidated results of operations and/or cash flows of the period in which the matter is resolved.

Brazil Investigation

On September 18, 2007, the Secretariat of Economic Law ("SDE"), a governmental agency in Brazil, initiated an investigation into possible anti-competitive practices in the Brazilian flexible packaging industry against a number of Brazilian companies including a Dixie Toga subsidiary. The investigation relates to periods prior to the Company’s acquisition of control of Dixie Toga and its subsidiaries. Given the nature of the proceedings, the Company is unable at the present time to predict the outcome of this matter.

Multiemployer Defined Benefit Pension Plans

The Company contributes to three multiemployer defined benefit pension plans based on obligations arising under collective bargaining agreements covering union-represented employees. The Company does not directly manage these multiemployer pension plans, which are generally managed by boards of trustees, half of whom are appointed by the unions and the other half by employers contributing to the plans. Based on the information provided by the plan administrators, the Company is aware that these plans are underfunded. In addition, pension-related legislation requires underfunded pension plans to improve their funding ratios within prescribed intervals based on the level of their underfunding. As a result, the Company expects its contributions to these plans to increase in the future.

Under current law regarding multiemployer defined benefit plans, a plan’s termination, the Company’s voluntary partial or full withdrawal, or the mass withdrawal of all contributing employers from any underfunded multiemployer pension plan would require the Company to make payments to the plan for the Company’s proportionate share of the multiemployer pension plan’s unfunded vested liabilities. In addition, if a multiemployer defined benefit pension plan fails to satisfy certain minimum funding requirements, the IRS may impose a nondeductible excise tax of five percent on the amount of the accumulated funding deficiency for those employers contributing to the fund.

The Company recorded charges related to the planned withdrawal from the GCIU — Employee Retirement Fund in the fourth quarter of 2011 and the second quarter of 2012 as part of the Company’s 2011 and 2012 facility consolidation programs. The expense recorded represents the Company’s best estimate of the expected settlement of these planned withdrawal liabilities. While it is not possible to quantify the potential impact of future actions, further reductions in participation or withdrawal from these multiemployer pension plans could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s consolidated annual results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.