Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES 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 disagreed and assessed Dixie Toga the city services tax for the years 1991-1995. The assessments for those years are estimated to be approximately $46.8 million at the date the Company acquired Dixie Toga, translated to U.S. dollars at the December 31, 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, 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. 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 $7.0 million for Itap Bemis and $22.7 million for Dixie Toga, translated to U.S. dollars at the December 31, 2013 exchange rate. In the event of an adverse resolution, the estimated amounts for these years could be increased by $48.5 million for Itap Bemis and $141.2 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 for both entities. 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 $47.5 million, translated to U.S. dollars at the December 31, 2013 exchange rate. The Company strongly disagrees with the City’s position and intends to vigorously challenge any assessments by the City. 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 Company's consolidated results of operations and/or cash flows of the period in which the matter is resolved. Brazil Tax Dispute - Goodwill Amortization During October 2013, Dixie Toga, received an income tax assessment in Brazil for the tax years 2009 through 2011 that relates to the amortization of certain goodwill generated from the acquisition of Dixie Toga. The income tax assessed for those years is approximately $16.3 million, translated to U.S. dollars at the December 31, 2013 exchange rate. The Company expects that tax examinations for years after 2011 will include similar assessments as the Company continues to claim the tax benefits associated with the goodwill amortization. An ultimate adverse resolution on these assessments, including interest and penalties, could be material to the Company's consolidated results of operations and/or cash flows. The Company has been advised by its legal and tax advisors that its position with respect to the deductions is allowable under the tax laws of Brazil. The Company is contesting the disallowance and believes it is more likely than not the tax benefit will be sustained in its entirety and consequently has not recorded a liability. The Company intends to litigate the matter if it is not resolved at the administrative appeals levels. The ultimate outcome will not be determined until the Brazilian tax appeal process is complete, which could take several years. At this time, the Company believes that final resolution of the assessment will not have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements. 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 As of December 31, 2013, the Company participates in two multi-employer defined benefit pension plans based on obligations arising under collective bargaining agreements covering union-represented employees. The Company does not directly manage these multi-employer 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 multi-employer 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 multi-employer pension plan would require the Company to make payments to the plan for the Company’s proportionate share of the multi-employer pension plan’s unfunded vested liabilities. In addition, if a multi-employer defined benefit pension plan fails to satisfy certain minimum funding requirements, the IRS may impose a nondeductible excise tax of 5 percent on the amount of the accumulated funding deficiency for those employers contributing to the fund. It cannot be assured that there will not be a withdrawal event where the amount the Company would be required to contribute would have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Based on the most recently available valuation data, the Company estimates a full withdrawal from both plans would result in a charge of approximately $25 million, with the option to pay the balance in installments over twenty years. The Company recorded charges related to the full withdrawal from the GCIU-Employee Retirement Fund as part of the Company’s 2011 and 2012 facility consolidation program. In December 2013, the Company settled with the GCIU and paid the withdrawal liability in full.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

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 disagreed and assessed Dixie Toga the city services tax for the years 1991-1995. The assessments for those years are estimated to be approximately $46.8 million at the date the Company acquired Dixie Toga, translated to U.S. dollars at the December 31, 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, 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. 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 $7.0 million for Itap Bemis and $22.7 million for Dixie Toga, translated to U.S. dollars at the December 31, 2013 exchange rate. In the event of an adverse resolution, the estimated amounts for these years could be increased by $48.5 million for Itap Bemis and $141.2 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 for both entities. 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 $47.5 million, translated to U.S. dollars at the December 31, 2013 exchange rate.

The Company strongly disagrees with the City’s position and intends to vigorously challenge any assessments by the City. 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 Company's consolidated results of operations and/or cash flows of the period in which the matter is resolved.

Brazil Tax Dispute - Goodwill Amortization

During October 2013, Dixie Toga, received an income tax assessment in Brazil for the tax years 2009 through 2011 that relates to the amortization of certain goodwill generated from the acquisition of Dixie Toga. The income tax assessed for those years is approximately $16.3 million, translated to U.S. dollars at the December 31, 2013 exchange rate. The Company expects that tax examinations for years after 2011 will include similar assessments as the Company continues to claim the tax benefits associated with the goodwill amortization. An ultimate adverse resolution on these assessments, including interest and penalties, could be material to the Company's consolidated results of operations and/or cash flows.

The Company has been advised by its legal and tax advisors that its position with respect to the deductions is allowable under the tax laws of Brazil. The Company is contesting the disallowance and believes it is more likely than not the tax benefit will be sustained in its entirety and consequently has not recorded a liability. The Company intends to litigate the matter if it is not resolved at the administrative appeals levels. The ultimate outcome will not be determined until the Brazilian tax appeal process is complete, which could take several years. At this time, the Company believes that final resolution of the assessment will not have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements.

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

As of December 31, 2013, the Company participates in two multi-employer defined benefit pension plans based on obligations arising under collective bargaining agreements covering union-represented employees. The Company does not directly manage these multi-employer 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 multi-employer 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 multi-employer pension plan would require the Company to make payments to the plan for the Company’s proportionate share of the multi-employer pension plan’s unfunded vested liabilities. In addition, if a multi-employer defined benefit pension plan fails to satisfy certain minimum funding requirements, the IRS may impose a nondeductible excise tax of 5 percent on the amount of the accumulated funding deficiency for those employers contributing to the fund. It cannot be assured that there will not be a withdrawal event where the amount the Company would be required to contribute would have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Based on the most recently available valuation data, the Company estimates a full withdrawal from both plans would result in a charge of approximately $25 million, with the option to pay the balance in installments over twenty years.

The Company recorded charges related to the full withdrawal from the GCIU-Employee Retirement Fund as part of the Company’s 2011 and 2012 facility consolidation program. In December 2013, the Company settled with the GCIU and paid the withdrawal liability in full.