Contingency	9 Months Ended
Nov. 23, 2012
Contingency	Note 14—Contingency The Corporation is presently involved in various judicial, administrative, regulatory and arbitration proceedings concerning matters arising in the ordinary course of business, including but not limited to, employment, commercial disputes and other contractual matters, some of which are described below. These matters are inherently subject to many uncertainties regarding the possibility of a loss to the Corporation. These uncertainties will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur, confirming the incurrence of a liability or reduction of a liability. In accordance with ASC Topic 450, “Contingencies,” the Corporation accrues for these contingencies by a charge to income when it is both probable that one or more future events will occur confirming the fact of a loss and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Due to this uncertainty, the actual amount of any loss may ultimately prove to be larger or smaller than the amounts reflected in the Corporation’s Consolidated Financial Statements. Some of these proceedings are at preliminary stages and some of these cases seek an indeterminate amount of damages. Baker/Collier Litigation. American Greetings Corporation is a defendant in two putative class action lawsuits involving corporate-owned life insurance policies (the “Insurance Policies”): one filed in the Northern District of Ohio on January 11, 2012 by Theresa Baker as the personal representative of the estate of Richard Charles Wolfe (the “Baker Litigation”); and the other filed in the Northern District of Oklahoma on October 1, 2010 by Keith Collier as the personal representative of the estate of Ruthie Collier (the “Collier Litigation”). In the Baker Litigation, the plaintiff claims that American Greetings Corporation (1) misappropriated its employees’ names and identities to benefit itself; (2) breached its fiduciary duty by using its employees’ identities and personal information to benefit itself; (3) unjustly enriched itself through the receipt of corporate-owned life insurance policy benefits, interest and investment returns; and (4) improperly received insurance policy benefits for the insurable interest in Mr. Wolfe’s life. The plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of all pecuniary benefits associated with the subject Insurance Policies, including investment returns, interest and life insurance policy benefits that American Greetings Corporation received from the deaths of the former employees whose estates form the putative class. The plaintiff also seeks punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and attorney’s fees. On April 30, 2012, American Greetings Corporation filed a Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification. The court stayed the plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification until the Motion to Dismiss was decided. On September 19, 2012, the Ohio federal court ordered the Baker plaintiff to file an amended complaint and then denied without prejudice the Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss the Baker Litigation as moot. On October 1, 2012, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. On October 18, 2012, American Greetings Corporation filed its Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Class certification has not been decided in either of these cases. In the Collier Litigation, the plaintiff claims that American Greetings Corporation did not have an insurable interest when it obtained the subject Insurance Policies and wrongfully received the benefits from those policies. The plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of policy benefits received by American Greetings Corporation from the subject Insurance Policies, as well as attorney’s fees and costs and interest. On April 2, 2012, the plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint, adding misappropriation of employee information and breach of fiduciary duty claims as well as seeking punitive damages. On April 20, 2012, American Greetings Corporation filed a Motion to Transfer the case to the Ohio federal court. On July 6, 2012, the court granted the Corporation’s Motion to Transfer and transferred the case to the Northern District of Ohio, where the Baker Litigation is pending. As requested by the court, the parties filed a joint proposed scheduling order on October 29, 2012, setting the Collier and Baker Litigations on parallel procedural tracks. On January 2, 2013, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Stay the Collier and Baker Litigations for 60 days to allow the parties to engage in private mediation. The same law firm represents the individual plaintiffs in the Collier and Baker matters. Cookie Jar/MoonScoop Litigation. As previously disclosed, on May 6, 2009, American Greetings Corporation and its subsidiary, Those Characters From Cleveland, Inc. (“TCFC”), filed an action in the Cuyahoga County (Ohio) Court of Common Pleas against Cookie Jar Entertainment Inc. (“Cookie Jar”) and its affiliates, Cookie Jar Entertainment (USA) Inc. (formerly known as DIC Entertainment Corporation) (“DIC”) and Cookie Jar Entertainment Holdings (USA) Inc. (formerly known as DIC Entertainment Holdings, Inc.) relating to the July 20, 2008 Binding Letter Agreement between American Greetings Corporation and Cookie Jar (the “Cookie Jar Agreement”) for the sale of the Strawberry Shortcake and Care Bears properties (the “Properties”). On May 7, 2009, Cookie Jar removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Simultaneously, Cookie Jar filed an action against American Greetings Corporation, TCFC, Mike Young Productions, LLC (“Mike Young Productions”) and MoonScoop SAS (“MoonScoop”) in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. Mike Young Productions and MoonScoop were named as defendants in the action in connection with the binding term sheet between American Greetings Corporation and MoonScoop dated March 24, 2009 (the “MoonScoop Binding Agreement”), providing for the sale to MoonScoop of the Properties. On May 7, 2010, the legal proceedings involving American Greetings Corporation, TCFC, Cookie Jar and DIC were settled, without a payment to any of the parties. As part of the settlement, on May 7, 2010, the Cookie Jar Agreement was amended to, among other things, terminate American Greetings Corporation’s obligation to sell to Cookie Jar, and Cookie Jar’s obligation to purchase, the Properties. As part of the settlement, Cookie Jar Entertainment (USA) Inc. continued to represent the Strawberry Shortcake property on behalf of American Greetings Corporation and become an international agent for the Care Bears property. On May 19, 2010, the Northern District of Ohio court granted the parties’ joint motion to dismiss all claims and counterclaims without prejudice. On August 11, 2009, MoonScoop filed an action against American Greetings Corporation and TCFC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleging breach of contract and promissory estoppel relating to the MoonScoop Binding Agreement. On MoonScoop’s request, the court agreed to consolidate this lawsuit with the first Ohio lawsuit (described above) for all pretrial purposes. The parties filed motions for summary judgment on various claims. On April 27, 2010, the court granted American Greetings Corporation’s and TCFC’s motion for summary judgment on MoonScoop’s breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims, dismissing these claims with prejudice. On the same day, the court also ruled that American Greetings Corporation must indemnify MoonScoop against Cookie Jar’s claims in this lawsuit. On May 21, 2010, MoonScoop appealed the court’s summary judgment ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On June 4, 2010, American Greetings Corporation and TCFC appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit the court’s ruling that it must indemnify MoonScoop against the cross claims asserted against it. On July 16, 2012, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Northern District of Ohio’s order that had granted American Greetings Corporation’s summary judgment on MoonScoop’s principal claims. The case has been remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the District Court’s finding on summary judgment in favor of MoonScoop on its indemnity claim, involving MoonScoop’s attorney fees for defending against Cookie Jar’s third-party claims (which have been dismissed). As a result, the Corporation has reimbursed MoonScoop for the $161,309 in attorney fees that it incurred. The District Court trial began on November 13, 2012. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of American Greetings Corporation and TCFC. On November 26, 2012, the District Court entered judgment in favor of American Greetings Corporation and against MoonScoop. On December 20, 2012, MoonScoop appealed the verdict to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Carter/Wolfe/LMPERS Litigation. On September 26, 2012, the Corporation announced that the Board of Directors had received a non-binding proposal (the “Going Private Proposal”) dated September 25, 2012 from Zev Weiss, our Chief Executive Officer, and Jeffrey Weiss, our President and Chief Operating Officer, on behalf of themselves and certain other members of the Weiss family and related parties, to acquire all of the outstanding Class A and Class B common shares not currently owned by them for $17.18 per share. On September 27, 2012, Dolores Carter, a purported shareholder, filed a putative class action and shareholder derivative lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, against American Greetings Corporation and all of the members of its Board of Directors, alleging that the directors breached their fiduciary duties in evaluating the Going Private Proposal and seeking declaratory relief. Subsequently, eight more lawsuits were filed in Cuyahoga County state court against American Greetings Corporation and its Board of Directors. One lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed. The remaining lawsuits were consolidated and remain pending with the commercial docket in Cuyahoga County court. On December 6, 2012, the court appointed the lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff’s counsel. On November 6, 2012, R. David Wolfe, a purported shareholder, filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against American Greetings Corporation, certain members of the Weiss family, the Irving I. Stone Oversight Trust, Irving Stone Limited Liability Company, Irving I. Stone Support Foundation and Irving I. Stone Foundation, alleging breach of fiduciary duties against certain Weiss defendants by proposing and pursuing the Going Private Proposal (the “Wolfe Litigation”) and seeking declaratory relief. Shortly thereafter, on November 9, 2012, the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System filed a similar, purported class action against the same defendants as the Wolfe Litigation, also alleging breach of fiduciary duties against certain Weiss defendants and seeking declaratory relief (the “LMPERS Litigation”). On November 30, 2012, the Wolfe Litigation plaintiff filed Motions to (1) Consolidate the Wolfe and LMPERS Litigations; (2) for Appointment as Co-lead Plaintiff; (3) for Appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiff’s Counsel, and (4) for Partial Summary Judgment. On December 14, 2012, the Corporation filed its Oppositions to the Motions (a) to Consolidate the Wolfe and LMPERS Litigation, (b) for Appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiff and (c) for Appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiff’s Counsel. On the same day, American Greetings Corporation also filed a Motion to Dismiss the action. Management is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses for these cases in which the damages have not been specified and (i) the proceedings are in the early stages, (ii) there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of the class, (iii) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of the pending appeals or motions, (iv) there are significant factual issues to be resolved, and/or (v) there are novel legal issues presented. However, for these cases, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s financial condition, though the outcomes could be material to the Corporation’s operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

Note 14—Contingency

The Corporation is presently involved in various judicial, administrative, regulatory and arbitration proceedings concerning matters arising in the ordinary course of business, including but not limited to, employment, commercial disputes and other contractual matters, some of which are described below. These matters are inherently subject to many uncertainties regarding the possibility of a loss to the Corporation. These uncertainties will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur, confirming the incurrence of a liability or reduction of a liability. In accordance with ASC Topic 450, “Contingencies,” the Corporation accrues for these contingencies by a charge to income when it is both probable that one or more future events will occur confirming the fact of a loss and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Due to this uncertainty, the actual amount of any loss may ultimately prove to be larger or smaller than the amounts reflected in the Corporation’s Consolidated Financial Statements. Some of these proceedings are at preliminary stages and some of these cases seek an indeterminate amount of damages.

Baker/Collier Litigation. American Greetings Corporation is a defendant in two putative class action lawsuits involving corporate-owned life insurance policies (the “Insurance Policies”): one filed in the Northern District of Ohio on January 11, 2012 by Theresa Baker as the personal representative of the estate of Richard Charles Wolfe (the “Baker Litigation”); and the other filed in the Northern District of Oklahoma on October 1, 2010 by Keith Collier as the personal representative of the estate of Ruthie Collier (the “Collier Litigation”).

In the Baker Litigation, the plaintiff claims that American Greetings Corporation (1) misappropriated its employees’ names and identities to benefit itself; (2) breached its fiduciary duty by using its employees’ identities and personal information to benefit itself; (3) unjustly enriched itself through the receipt of corporate-owned life insurance policy benefits, interest and investment returns; and (4) improperly received insurance policy benefits for the insurable interest in Mr. Wolfe’s life. The plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of all pecuniary benefits associated with the subject Insurance Policies, including investment returns, interest and life insurance policy benefits that American Greetings Corporation received from the deaths of the former employees whose estates form the putative class. The plaintiff also seeks punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and attorney’s fees. On April 30, 2012, American Greetings Corporation filed a Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification. The court stayed the plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification until the Motion to Dismiss was decided. On September 19, 2012, the Ohio federal court ordered the Baker plaintiff to file an amended complaint and then denied without prejudice the Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss the Baker Litigation as moot. On October 1, 2012, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. On October 18, 2012, American Greetings Corporation filed its Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Class certification has not been decided in either of these cases.

In the Collier Litigation, the plaintiff claims that American Greetings Corporation did not have an insurable interest when it obtained the subject Insurance Policies and wrongfully received the benefits from those policies. The plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of policy benefits received by American Greetings Corporation from the subject Insurance Policies, as well as attorney’s fees and costs and interest. On April 2, 2012, the plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint, adding misappropriation of employee information and breach of fiduciary duty claims as well as seeking punitive damages. On April 20, 2012, American Greetings Corporation filed a Motion to Transfer the case to the Ohio federal court. On July 6, 2012, the court granted the Corporation’s Motion to Transfer and transferred the case to the Northern District of Ohio, where the Baker Litigation is pending.

As requested by the court, the parties filed a joint proposed scheduling order on October 29, 2012, setting the Collier and Baker Litigations on parallel procedural tracks. On January 2, 2013, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Stay the Collier and Baker Litigations for 60 days to allow the parties to engage in private mediation. The same law firm represents the individual plaintiffs in the Collier and Baker matters.

Cookie Jar/MoonScoop Litigation. As previously disclosed, on May 6, 2009, American Greetings Corporation and its subsidiary, Those Characters From Cleveland, Inc. (“TCFC”), filed an action in the Cuyahoga County (Ohio) Court of Common Pleas against Cookie Jar Entertainment Inc. (“Cookie Jar”) and its affiliates, Cookie Jar Entertainment (USA) Inc. (formerly known as DIC Entertainment Corporation) (“DIC”) and Cookie Jar Entertainment Holdings (USA) Inc. (formerly known as DIC Entertainment Holdings, Inc.) relating to the July 20, 2008 Binding Letter Agreement between American Greetings Corporation and Cookie Jar (the “Cookie Jar Agreement”) for the sale of the Strawberry Shortcake and Care Bears properties (the “Properties”). On May 7, 2009, Cookie Jar removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Simultaneously, Cookie Jar filed an action against American Greetings Corporation, TCFC, Mike Young Productions, LLC (“Mike Young Productions”) and MoonScoop SAS (“MoonScoop”) in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. Mike Young Productions and MoonScoop were named as defendants in the action in connection with the binding term sheet between American Greetings Corporation and MoonScoop dated March 24, 2009 (the “MoonScoop Binding Agreement”), providing for the sale to MoonScoop of the Properties.

On May 7, 2010, the legal proceedings involving American Greetings Corporation, TCFC, Cookie Jar and DIC were settled, without a payment to any of the parties. As part of the settlement, on May 7, 2010, the Cookie Jar Agreement was amended to, among other things, terminate American Greetings Corporation’s obligation to sell to Cookie Jar, and Cookie Jar’s obligation to purchase, the Properties. As part of the settlement, Cookie Jar Entertainment (USA) Inc. continued to represent the Strawberry Shortcake property on behalf of American Greetings Corporation and become an international agent for the Care Bears property. On May 19, 2010, the Northern District of Ohio court granted the parties’ joint motion to dismiss all claims and counterclaims without prejudice.

On August 11, 2009, MoonScoop filed an action against American Greetings Corporation and TCFC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleging breach of contract and promissory estoppel relating to the MoonScoop Binding Agreement. On MoonScoop’s request, the court agreed to consolidate this lawsuit with the first Ohio lawsuit (described above) for all pretrial purposes. The parties filed motions for summary judgment on various claims. On April 27, 2010, the court granted American Greetings Corporation’s and TCFC’s motion for summary judgment on MoonScoop’s breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims, dismissing these claims with prejudice. On the same day, the court also ruled that American Greetings Corporation must indemnify MoonScoop against Cookie Jar’s claims in this lawsuit. On May 21, 2010, MoonScoop appealed the court’s summary judgment ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On June 4, 2010, American Greetings Corporation and TCFC appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit the court’s ruling that it must indemnify MoonScoop against the cross claims asserted against it.

On July 16, 2012, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Northern District of Ohio’s order that had granted American Greetings Corporation’s summary judgment on MoonScoop’s principal claims. The case has been remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the District Court’s finding on summary judgment in favor of MoonScoop on its indemnity claim, involving MoonScoop’s attorney fees for defending against Cookie Jar’s third-party claims (which have been dismissed). As a result, the Corporation has reimbursed MoonScoop for the $161,309 in attorney fees that it incurred. The District Court trial began on November 13, 2012. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of American Greetings Corporation and TCFC. On November 26, 2012, the District Court entered judgment in favor of American Greetings Corporation and against MoonScoop. On December 20, 2012, MoonScoop appealed the verdict to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Carter/Wolfe/LMPERS Litigation. On September 26, 2012, the Corporation announced that the Board of Directors had received a non-binding proposal (the “Going Private Proposal”) dated September 25, 2012 from Zev Weiss, our Chief Executive Officer, and Jeffrey Weiss, our President and Chief Operating Officer, on behalf of themselves and certain other members of the Weiss family and related parties, to acquire all of the outstanding Class A and Class B common shares not currently owned by them for $17.18 per share. On September 27, 2012, Dolores Carter, a purported shareholder, filed a putative class action and shareholder derivative lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, against American Greetings Corporation and all of the members of its Board of Directors, alleging that the directors breached their fiduciary duties in evaluating the Going Private Proposal and seeking declaratory relief. Subsequently, eight more lawsuits were filed in Cuyahoga County state court against American Greetings Corporation and its Board of Directors. One lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed. The remaining lawsuits were consolidated and remain pending with the commercial docket in Cuyahoga County court. On December 6, 2012, the court appointed the lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff’s counsel.

On November 6, 2012, R. David Wolfe, a purported shareholder, filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against American Greetings Corporation, certain members of the Weiss family, the Irving I. Stone Oversight Trust, Irving Stone Limited Liability Company, Irving I. Stone Support Foundation and Irving I. Stone Foundation, alleging breach of fiduciary duties against certain Weiss defendants by proposing and pursuing the Going Private Proposal (the “Wolfe Litigation”) and seeking declaratory relief. Shortly thereafter, on November 9, 2012, the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System filed a similar, purported class action against the same defendants as the Wolfe Litigation, also alleging breach of fiduciary duties against certain Weiss defendants and seeking declaratory relief (the “LMPERS Litigation”).

On November 30, 2012, the Wolfe Litigation plaintiff filed Motions to (1) Consolidate the Wolfe and LMPERS Litigations; (2) for Appointment as Co-lead Plaintiff; (3) for Appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiff’s Counsel, and (4) for Partial Summary Judgment. On December 14, 2012, the Corporation filed its Oppositions to the Motions (a) to Consolidate the Wolfe and LMPERS Litigation, (b) for Appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiff and (c) for Appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiff’s Counsel. On the same day, American Greetings Corporation also filed a Motion to Dismiss the action.

Management is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses for these cases in which the damages have not been specified and (i) the proceedings are in the early stages, (ii) there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of the class, (iii) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of the pending appeals or motions, (iv) there are significant factual issues to be resolved, and/or (v) there are novel legal issues presented. However, for these cases, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s financial condition, though the outcomes could be material to the Corporation’s operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.