COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Nov. 10, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Lease Financing Obligation During the third quarter of 2012, the Company completed a sale-leaseback transaction of its properties in St. Louis, Missouri. The sale resulted in net proceeds to the Company of $2.8 million, which was used to pay down outstanding long-term debt in connection with certain mandatory prepayment requirements. The lease has an initial term of twenty (20) years with two additional five (5) year options. The Company accounted for this transaction in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 840, “Leases”. Because the lease contains forms of continuing involvement, the transaction does not qualify for sale-leaseback accounting treatment. Accordingly, the Company has accounted for the transaction using the financing method and recorded an obligation equal to the amount received on the sale of the properties. This obligation will be increased/decreased as lease payments are made by the Company. As of November 10, 2012, the outstanding lease financing obligation was $2.8 million and included in Other liabilities on the Interim Consolidated Balance Sheet. Standby Letters of Credit As of November 10, 2012, the Company had standby letters of credit outstanding in the principal amount of $13.8 million primarily used in conjunction with the Company’s various large deductible insurance programs. Legal Proceedings The Company and two of its subsidiaries are defendants in a lawsuit entitled Shannon Paige, et al. v. Consumer Programs, Inc., filed March 8, 2007, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC367546. The case was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. CV 07-2498-FMC (RCx). The Plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to pay him and other hourly associates for “off the clock” work and that the Company failed to provide meal and rest breaks as required by law. The Plaintiff is seeking damages and injunctive relief for himself and others similarly situated. On October 6, 2008, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification but allowed Plaintiffs to attempt to certify a smaller class, thus reducing the size of the potential class to approximately 200. Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification of the smaller class on November 14, 2008. The Company filed its opposition on December 8, 2008. In January 2009, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to their claims that they worked "off the clock". The Court also deferred ruling on Plaintiff's motion for class certification as to their missed break claims and stayed the action until the California Supreme Court ruled on a pending case on the issue of whether an employer must merely provide an opportunity for employees to take a lunch break or whether an employer must actively ensure that its employees take the break (Brinker Restaurant v. S. C. (Hohnbaum)). The California Supreme Court ruled on the Brinker case on April 12, 2012. The Court held that employers do not have to ensure that a meal period is taken, but have only to make it available. Pursuant to order of the Court in the Paige case, the parties filed briefs in May on the impact of the Brinker case. On July 16, 2012, the Court certified a class limited to meal and rest breaks claims for Sears Portrait Studio managers working in California. The parties have commenced post-certification discovery, and the Company will file a motion for class decertification in the coming months. The Company believes the claims are without merit and continues its vigorous defense on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries against these claims, however, an adverse ruling in this case could require the Company to pay damages, penalties, interest and fines. It is not possible to determine the ultimate outcome of this action or to estimate the potential impact on the Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial position. The Company, several of its current or former officers and employees and The Charles Schwab Trust Company have been named as defendants in a lawsuit entitled Theodore J. Hellmann v. CPI Corporation, et. al., filed November 21, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Case No.: 4:12-cv-02177. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are fiduciaries of the CPI Corp. Employees Profit Sharing Plan and Trust (the “Plan”) under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) and that Defendants breached their ERISA fiduciary duties to the Plan's participants whose individual accounts included investments in the Company's common stock during an alleged Class Period of August 31, 2010 to the present, when Plaintiffs allege that the common stock was an imprudent investment. Plaintiff also alleges that all defendants are liable as co-fiduciaries for one another's alleged breaches. Plaintiff purports to assert these claims on behalf of the Plan as well as a proposed class of other Plan participants and requests, among other things, restoration of losses to the Plan, damages, a constructive trust and an allocation of losses allegedly attributable to the decline in the Company's stock price to the accounts of Plan participants. Responsive pleadings are not yet due in this case. Nevertheless, the Company believes the claims are without merit and it will vigorously defend the case on behalf of itself and its officers and employees. It is not possible at this time to determine the ultimate outcome of this action or to estimate the potential impact on the Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial position. The Company was a defendant in a lawsuit entitled IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. CPI Corp., et al., filed January 13, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Civil Action No. 4:12-CV-75 AGF. IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund (IBEW) commenced a putative securities class action against CPI Corp. (CPI), Renato Cataldo, Dale E. Heins and David M. Meyer on January 13, 2012. The Complaint was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired CPI common stock between April 20, 2010 and December 21, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”). IBEW alleged on behalf of the purported class that, as a result of the defendants' allegedly false statements and omissions, CPI common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. By court stipulation dated February 9, 2012, the parties agreed that not later than 60 days after entry of an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel, the Lead Plaintiff shall file a consolidated amended class action complaint, which shall be deemed the operative complaint and the Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the Consolidated Complaint within 60 days after service of the Consolidated Complaint. On March 13, 2012, plaintiffs IBEW and George David filed a motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiffs and for approval of Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel. That motion was granted on August 3, 2012. The parties filed a Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal on November 6, 2012. The dismissal is with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs, IBEW and George David. The Court entered a Memorandum and Order of Dismissal on November 9, 2012. The Company was a defendant in a lawsuit entitled Heim v. Meyer, et al., filed on February 24, 2012 in the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court of St. Louis, Missouri, Civil Action No. 1222CC00943. Wayne Heim, derivatively on behalf of the Company, commenced a shareholder derivative action against David M. Meyer, Renato Cataldo, Dale E. Heins, James J. Abel, Michael S. Koeneke, John Turner White, IV, Michael Glazer, Eric Salus and the Company, as a nominal defendant, on February 24, 2012. The complaint alleged breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment by the Individual Defendants, each of whom is or was a director or officer, or both, of the Company during the events alleged. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants instituted inadequate corporate controls and, as a result, certain defendants made essentially the same allegedly false and misleading statements about CPI's financial performance between April 20, 2010 and December 21, 2011 as alleged in the IBEW securities action described above. Plaintiff further alleged that the defendants permitted a waste of corporate assets by among other things paying excessive compensation to certain of its executive officers and directors, increasing dividend payments and continuing share buybacks. Plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of damages and specified reforms to the Company's corporate governance. The parties filed a stipulation on April 12, 2012 to stay the matter until 30 days after a ruling on Defendants' motion to dismiss the IBEW Securities action. On November 19, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal. The Dismissal is with prejudice as to Plaintiff Wayne Heim. The Court entered the Order of Dismissal on December 3, 2012. The Company is also a defendant in other routine litigation, but does not believe these lawsuits, individually or in combination with the cases described above, will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition. The Company cannot, however, give assurances that these legal proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on its business or financial condition.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Lease Financing Obligation

During the third quarter of 2012, the Company completed a sale-leaseback transaction of its properties in St. Louis, Missouri. The sale resulted in net proceeds to the Company of $2.8 million, which was used to pay down outstanding long-term debt in connection with certain mandatory prepayment requirements. The lease has an initial term of twenty (20) years with two additional five (5) year options. The Company accounted for this transaction in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 840, “Leases”. Because the lease contains forms of continuing involvement, the transaction does not qualify for sale-leaseback accounting treatment. Accordingly, the Company has accounted for the transaction using the financing method and recorded an obligation equal to the amount received on the sale of the properties. This obligation will be increased/decreased as lease payments are made by the Company. As of November 10, 2012, the outstanding lease financing obligation was $2.8 million and included in Other liabilities on the Interim Consolidated Balance Sheet.

Standby Letters of Credit

As of November 10, 2012, the Company had standby letters of credit outstanding in the principal amount of $13.8 million primarily used in conjunction with the Company’s various large deductible insurance programs.

Legal Proceedings

The Company and two of its subsidiaries are defendants in a lawsuit entitled Shannon Paige, et al. v. Consumer Programs, Inc., filed March 8, 2007, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC367546. The case was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. CV 07-2498-FMC (RCx). The Plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to pay him and other hourly associates for “off the clock” work and that the Company failed to provide meal and rest breaks as required by law. The Plaintiff is seeking damages and injunctive relief for himself and others similarly situated. On October 6, 2008, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification but allowed Plaintiffs to attempt to certify a smaller class, thus reducing the size of the potential class to approximately 200. Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification of the smaller class on November 14, 2008. The Company filed its opposition on December 8, 2008. In January 2009, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to their claims that they worked "off the clock". The Court also deferred ruling on Plaintiff's motion for class certification as to their missed break claims and stayed the action until the California Supreme Court ruled on a pending case on the issue of whether an employer must merely provide an opportunity for employees to take a lunch break or whether an employer must actively ensure that its employees take the break (Brinker Restaurant v. S. C. (Hohnbaum)). The California Supreme Court ruled on the Brinker case on April 12, 2012. The Court held that employers do not have to ensure that a meal period is taken, but have only to make it available. Pursuant to order of the Court in the Paige case, the parties filed briefs in May on the impact of the Brinker case. On July 16, 2012, the Court certified a class limited to meal and rest breaks claims for Sears Portrait Studio managers working in California. The parties have commenced post-certification discovery, and the Company will file a motion for class decertification in the coming months. The Company believes the claims are without merit and continues its vigorous defense on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries against these claims, however, an adverse ruling in this case could require the Company to pay damages, penalties, interest and fines. It is not possible to determine the ultimate outcome of this action or to estimate the potential impact on the Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial position.

The Company, several of its current or former officers and employees and The Charles Schwab Trust Company have been named as defendants in a lawsuit entitled Theodore J. Hellmann v. CPI Corporation, et. al., filed November 21, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Case No.: 4:12-cv-02177. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are fiduciaries of the CPI Corp. Employees Profit Sharing Plan and Trust (the “Plan”) under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) and that Defendants breached their ERISA fiduciary duties to the Plan's participants whose individual accounts included investments in the Company's common stock during an alleged Class Period of August 31, 2010 to the present, when Plaintiffs allege that the common stock was an imprudent investment. Plaintiff also alleges that all defendants are liable as co-fiduciaries for one another's alleged breaches. Plaintiff purports to assert these claims on behalf of the Plan as well as a proposed class of other Plan participants and requests, among other things, restoration of losses to the Plan, damages, a constructive trust and an allocation of losses allegedly attributable to the decline in the Company's stock price to the accounts of Plan participants. Responsive pleadings are not yet due in this case. Nevertheless, the Company believes the claims are without merit and it will vigorously defend the case on behalf of itself and its officers and employees. It is not possible at this time to determine the ultimate outcome of this action or to estimate the potential impact on the Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial position.

The Company was a defendant in a lawsuit entitled IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. CPI Corp., et al., filed January 13, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Civil Action No. 4:12-CV-75 AGF. IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund (IBEW) commenced a putative securities class action against CPI Corp. (CPI), Renato Cataldo, Dale E. Heins and David M. Meyer on January 13, 2012. The Complaint was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired CPI common stock between April 20, 2010 and December 21, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”). IBEW alleged on behalf of the purported class that, as a result of the defendants' allegedly false statements and omissions, CPI common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. By court stipulation dated February 9, 2012, the parties agreed that not later than 60 days after entry of an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel, the Lead Plaintiff shall file a consolidated amended class action complaint, which shall be deemed the operative complaint and the Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the Consolidated Complaint within 60 days after service of the Consolidated Complaint. On March 13, 2012, plaintiffs IBEW and George David filed a motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiffs and for approval of Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel. That motion was granted on August 3, 2012. The parties filed a Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal on November 6, 2012. The dismissal is with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs, IBEW and George David. The Court entered a Memorandum and Order of Dismissal on November 9, 2012.

The Company was a defendant in a lawsuit entitled Heim v. Meyer, et al., filed on February 24, 2012 in the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court of St. Louis, Missouri, Civil Action No. 1222CC00943. Wayne Heim, derivatively on behalf of the Company, commenced a shareholder derivative action against David M. Meyer, Renato Cataldo, Dale E. Heins, James J. Abel, Michael S. Koeneke, John Turner White, IV, Michael Glazer, Eric Salus and the Company, as a nominal defendant, on February 24, 2012. The complaint alleged breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment by the Individual Defendants, each of whom is or was a director or officer, or both, of the Company during the events alleged. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants instituted inadequate corporate controls and, as a result, certain defendants made essentially the same allegedly false and misleading statements about CPI's financial performance between April 20, 2010 and December 21, 2011 as alleged in the IBEW securities action described above. Plaintiff further alleged that the defendants permitted a waste of corporate assets by among other things paying excessive compensation to certain of its executive officers and directors, increasing dividend payments and continuing share buybacks. Plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of damages and specified reforms to the Company's corporate governance. The parties filed a stipulation on April 12, 2012 to stay the matter until 30 days after a ruling on Defendants' motion to dismiss the IBEW Securities action. On November 19, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal. The Dismissal is with prejudice as to Plaintiff Wayne Heim. The Court entered the Order of Dismissal on December 3, 2012.

The Company is also a defendant in other routine litigation, but does not believe these lawsuits, individually or in combination with the cases described above, will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition. The Company cannot, however, give assurances that these legal proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on its business or financial condition.