Legal Proceedings	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
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 17 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 Two of the Company’s subsidiaries (Dixie Toga Ltda ("Dixie Toga") and Itap Bemis Ltda.) were 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 assessed this city services tax on the production and sale of printed labels and packaging products. The Company disagreed and contended that the city services tax was not applicable to its products and that the products were 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, the Company appealed the city services tax and instead continued to collect and pay only the state VAT. The City disagreed and assessed the subsidiaries the city services tax for the multiple years dating back to 1991. The Company challenged the assessments and ultimately litigated the issue. Multiple courts, including the Lower Tax Court in the city of São Paulo and the São Paulo Court of Justice, previously issued decisions in favor of the Company. In May 2014, the Second Panel of the Supreme Court for the State of São Paulo issued a decision in favor of the Company in one of the relevant lawsuits. The City did not appeal, and the decision is final. The Company is involved in several similar lawsuits with the City. We expect it may take several years before the remaining cases are fully decided, but we believe this decision has established precedence and should lead to a favorable ruling in the remaining cases. 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 $15.5 million, translated to U.S. dollars at the September 30, 2014 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. Multi-Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plans As of September 30, 2014, the Company participates in one multi-employer defined benefit pension plan based on obligations arising under collective bargaining agreements covering union-represented employees. The Company does not directly manage this multi-employer pension plan, which is generally managed by a board 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 administrator, the Company is aware that this plan is 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 this plan 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 five 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. As of December 31, 2013, based on the most recently available valuation data, the Company estimated a full withdrawal from its two remaining multi-employer plans would result in a charge of approximately $25 million, with the option to pay the balance in installments over 20 years. During the nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company settled and paid a withdrawal liability for the withdrawal from the Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund as part of a Pressure Sensitive Materials plant closure (refer to Note 4 — Divestitures and Plant Closure). The Company's current estimate of residual exposure related to its one remaining plan is not significant.

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 17 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

Two of the Company’s subsidiaries (Dixie Toga Ltda ("Dixie Toga") and Itap Bemis Ltda.) were 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 assessed this city services tax on the production and sale of printed labels and packaging products. The Company disagreed and contended that the city services tax was not applicable to its products and that the products were 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, the Company appealed the city services tax and instead continued to collect and pay only the state VAT.

The City disagreed and assessed the subsidiaries the city services tax for the multiple years dating back to 1991. The Company challenged the assessments and ultimately litigated the issue. Multiple courts, including the Lower Tax Court in the city of São Paulo and the São Paulo Court of Justice, previously issued decisions in favor of the Company. In May 2014, the Second Panel of the Supreme Court for the State of São Paulo issued a decision in favor of the Company in one of the relevant lawsuits. The City did not appeal, and the decision is final. The Company is involved in several similar lawsuits with the City. We expect it may take several years before the remaining cases are fully decided, but we believe this decision has established precedence and should lead to a favorable ruling in the remaining cases.

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 $15.5 million, translated to U.S. dollars at the September 30, 2014 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.

Multi-Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plans

As of September 30, 2014, the Company participates in one multi-employer defined benefit pension plan based on obligations arising under collective bargaining agreements covering union-represented employees. The Company does not directly manage this multi-employer pension plan, which is generally managed by a board 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 administrator, the Company is aware that this plan is 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 this plan 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 five 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.

As of December 31, 2013, based on the most recently available valuation data, the Company estimated a full withdrawal from its two remaining multi-employer plans would result in a charge of approximately $25 million, with the option to pay the balance in installments over 20 years. During the nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company settled and paid a withdrawal liability for the withdrawal from the Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund as part of a Pressure Sensitive Materials plant closure (refer to Note 4 — Divestitures and Plant Closure). The Company's current estimate of residual exposure related to its one remaining plan is not significant.