Contingency	12 Months Ended
Feb. 28, 2013
Contingency	NOTE 16 – 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. 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, 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 moved to transfer the Collier Litigation to the Northern District of Ohio, where the Baker Litigation is pending. On July 6, 2012, the court granted American Greetings Corporation’s Motion to Transfer and transferred the case to the Northern District of Ohio, where the Baker Litigation is pending. On January 24, 2013, the parties reached a settlement in principle in both cases that, if approved by the Court, will fully and finally resolve all of the claims of the Wolfe and Collier estates, as well as the classes they seek to represent. The settlement was a product of extensive negotiations and a private mediation. It anticipates that the Court will consolidate the two cases and certify a single class that consists of the heirs or estates of the estates and heirs of all former American Greetings Corporation employees (i) who are deceased; (ii) who were not officers or directors of American Greetings; (iii) who were insured under one of the following corporate owned life insurance plans: Provident Life & Accident 61153, Provident Life & Accident 61159, Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company 111, Connecticut General ENX219, and Hartford Life Insurance Company 361; and (iv) for whom American Greetings has received a death benefit on or before the date on which the Court enters the Order of Preliminary Approval. If finally approved by the Court, American Greetings Corporation will deposit $12,500 into a settlement fund to be distributed in its entirety to those members of the class who present valid claims, their counsel, and a settlement administration vendor. On April 19, 2013, the parties filed a joint motion seeking the Court’s preliminary approval of the settlement and are awaiting the Court’s approval of the settlement. If and when the settlement is approved, notice will be provided to potential class members, a hearing will be held, and the Court will entertain final approval of the settlement. Carter/Wolfe/LMPERS Litigation On September 26, 2012, we announced that our Board of Directors received a non-binding proposal from Zev Weiss, the Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer, and Jeffrey Weiss, the Corporation’s 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 common shares and Class B common shares of the Corporation not currently owned by them (the “ Going Private Proposal”). On September 27, 2012, Dolores Carter, a purported shareholder, filed a putative shareholder derivative and class action lawsuit (the “Carter Action”) in the Court of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio (the “Cuyahoga County Court”), against American Greetings Corporation and all of the members of the board of directors (“Carter Defendants”). The Carter Action alleges, among other things, that the directors of the Corporation breached their fiduciary duties owed to shareholders in evaluating and pursuing the proposal. The Carter Action further alleges claims for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. Among other things, the Carter Action seeks declaratory relief. Subsequently, six more lawsuits were filed in the Cuyahoga County Court purporting to advance substantially similar claims on behalf of American Greetings against the members of the board of directors and, in certain cases, additional direct claims against American Greetings. One lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed. The other lawsuits, which remain pending, were consolidated by Judge Richard J. McMonagle on December 6, 2012 (amended order dated December 18, 2012) as In re American Greetings Corp. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. CV 12 792421. Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel also were appointed. Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel has served written discovery on the Corporation and has communicated its intent to file a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the merger from moving forward. On April 30, 2013, Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel also filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The Consolidated Complaint brings a single class claim against the defendants for breach of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting. The plaintiffs allege that the preliminary proxy statement on Schedule 14A filed with the SEC on April 17, 2013 omits information necessary to permit the Corporation’s shareholders to determine if the Merger is in their best interest, that the controlling shareholders have abused their control of the Corporation, that the special committee appointed to oversee the transaction is not independent, and that the other members of the board are also not independent. On November 6, 2012, R. David Wolfe, a purported shareholder, filed a putative class action (the “Wolfe Action”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (the “Federal Court”) against certain members of the Weiss Family and the Irving I. Stone Oversight Trust, the Irving Stone Limited Liability Company, the Irving I. Stone Support Foundation, and the Irving I. Stone Foundation (“Stone Entities”) alleging breach of fiduciary duties in proposing and pursuing the proposal, as well as against American Greetings, seeking, among other things, declaratory relief. Shortly thereafter, on November 9, 2012, the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System also filed a purported class action in the Federal Court (the “LMPERS Action”) asserting substantially similar claims against the same defendants and seeking substantially similar relief. On November 30, 2012, plaintiffs in the Wolfe and LMPERS Actions filed motions (1) to consolidate the Wolfe and LMPERS Actions, (2) for appointment as co-lead plaintiffs, (3) for appointment of co-lead counsel, and, in the Wolfe Action only, (4) for partial summary judgment. On December 14, 2012, the Corporation filed its oppositions to the motions (a) to consolidate the Wolfe and LMPERS Actions, (b) for appointment as co-lead plaintiffs, and (c) for appointment of co-lead counsel. On the same day, the Corporation also moved to dismiss both the Wolfe and LMPERS Actions. The Corporation answered both complaints on January 8, 2013, and on January 11, 2013, it filed its opposition to the motion for partial summary judgment. On February 14, 2013, the federal court dismissed both the Wolfe and LMPERS Actions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On March 15, 2013, plaintiffs in both the Wolfe and LMPERS Actions filed notices of appeal with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Wolfe subsequently moved to voluntarily dismiss his appeal on April 18, 2013, and the Sixth Circuit granted his motion the following day. On May 5, 2013, counsel for LMPERS advised the Corporation that it intends to voluntarily dismiss its appeal as well. Plaintiffs in the Wolfe and LMPERS Actions alleged, in part, that Article Seventh of the Corporation’s articles of incorporation prohibited the special committee from, among other things, evaluating the merger. The Corporation considered these allegations and concluded that the Article is co-extensive with Ohio law and thus allows the Corporation to engage in any activity authorized by Ohio law. The Corporation also has consistently construed Article Seventh as permitting directors to approve a transaction so long as they are both disinterested and independent. On April 17, 2013, R. David Wolfe filed a new derivative and putative class action (“Wolfe Action II”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the Corporation’s directors, certain members of the Weiss Family, and the Stone Entities, as well as the Corporation as a nominal defendant. Mr. Wolfe subsequently filed an Amended Complaint on April 29, 2013. The Wolfe Action II seeks a declaratory judgment that Article Seventh precludes the board and special committee from approving the merger. In addition, the Wolfe Action II includes a derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the Corporation’s directors for allegedly violating Article Seventh. Finally, the Wolfe Action II includes both a derivative and class action claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the Weiss Family defendants and the Stone Entities for allegedly seeking to acquire the minority shareholders’ interests at an unfair price. The Corporation’s response to the Wolfe Action II is not yet due. 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 outcome of the pending appeals or motions, and/or (iii) there are significant factual issues to be resolved. 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 16 – 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.

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, 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 moved to transfer the Collier Litigation to the Northern District of Ohio, where the Baker Litigation is pending. On July 6, 2012, the court granted American Greetings Corporation’s Motion to Transfer and transferred the case to the Northern District of Ohio, where the Baker Litigation is pending.

On January 24, 2013, the parties reached a settlement in principle in both cases that, if approved by the Court, will fully and finally resolve all of the claims of the Wolfe and Collier estates, as well as the classes they seek to represent. The settlement was a product of extensive negotiations and a private mediation. It anticipates that the Court will consolidate the two cases and certify a single class that consists of the heirs or estates of the estates and heirs of all former American Greetings Corporation employees (i) who are deceased; (ii) who were not officers or directors of American Greetings; (iii) who were insured under one of the following corporate owned life insurance plans: Provident Life & Accident 61153, Provident Life & Accident 61159, Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company 111, Connecticut General ENX219, and Hartford Life Insurance Company 361; and (iv) for whom American Greetings has received a death benefit on or before the date on which the Court enters the Order of Preliminary Approval. If finally approved by the Court, American Greetings Corporation will deposit $12,500 into a settlement fund to be distributed in its entirety to those members of the class who present valid claims, their counsel, and a settlement administration vendor. On April 19, 2013, the parties filed a joint motion seeking the Court’s preliminary approval of the settlement and are awaiting the Court’s approval of the settlement. If and when the settlement is approved, notice will be provided to potential class members, a hearing will be held, and the Court will entertain final approval of the settlement.

Carter/Wolfe/LMPERS Litigation

On September 26, 2012, we announced that our Board of Directors received a non-binding proposal from Zev Weiss, the Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer, and Jeffrey Weiss, the Corporation’s 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 common shares and Class B common shares of the Corporation not currently owned by them (the “ Going Private Proposal”). On September 27, 2012, Dolores Carter, a purported shareholder, filed a putative shareholder derivative and class action lawsuit (the “Carter Action”) in the Court of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio (the “Cuyahoga County Court”), against American Greetings Corporation and all of the members of the board of directors (“Carter Defendants”). The Carter Action alleges, among other things, that the directors of the Corporation breached their fiduciary duties owed to shareholders in evaluating and pursuing the proposal. The Carter Action further alleges claims for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. Among other things, the Carter Action seeks declaratory relief. Subsequently, six more lawsuits were filed in the Cuyahoga County Court purporting to advance substantially similar claims on behalf of American Greetings against the members of the board of directors and, in certain cases, additional direct claims against American Greetings. One lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed. The other lawsuits, which remain pending, were consolidated by Judge Richard J. McMonagle on December 6, 2012 (amended order dated December 18, 2012) as In re American Greetings Corp. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. CV 12 792421. Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel also were appointed. Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel has served written discovery on the Corporation and has communicated its intent to file a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the merger from moving forward.

On April 30, 2013, Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel also filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The Consolidated Complaint brings a single class claim against the defendants for breach of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting. The plaintiffs allege that the preliminary proxy statement on Schedule 14A filed with the SEC on April 17, 2013 omits information necessary to permit the Corporation’s shareholders to determine if the Merger is in their best interest, that the controlling shareholders have abused their control of the Corporation, that the special committee appointed to oversee the transaction is not independent, and that the other members of the board are also not independent.

On November 6, 2012, R. David Wolfe, a purported shareholder, filed a putative class action (the “Wolfe Action”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (the “Federal Court”) against certain members of the Weiss Family and the Irving I. Stone Oversight Trust, the Irving Stone Limited Liability Company, the Irving I. Stone Support Foundation, and the Irving I. Stone Foundation (“Stone Entities”) alleging breach of fiduciary duties in proposing and pursuing the proposal, as well as against American Greetings, seeking, among other things, declaratory relief. Shortly thereafter, on November 9, 2012, the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System also filed a purported class action in the Federal Court (the “LMPERS Action”) asserting substantially similar claims against the same defendants and seeking substantially similar relief.

On November 30, 2012, plaintiffs in the Wolfe and LMPERS Actions filed motions (1) to consolidate the Wolfe and LMPERS Actions, (2) for appointment as co-lead plaintiffs, (3) for appointment of co-lead counsel, and, in the Wolfe Action only, (4) for partial summary judgment. On December 14, 2012, the Corporation filed its oppositions to the motions (a) to consolidate the Wolfe and LMPERS Actions, (b) for appointment as co-lead plaintiffs, and (c) for appointment of co-lead counsel. On the same day, the Corporation also moved to dismiss both the Wolfe and LMPERS Actions. The Corporation answered both complaints on January 8, 2013, and on January 11, 2013, it filed its opposition to the motion for partial summary judgment. On February 14, 2013, the federal court dismissed both the Wolfe and LMPERS Actions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On March 15, 2013, plaintiffs in both the Wolfe and LMPERS Actions filed notices of appeal with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Wolfe subsequently moved to voluntarily dismiss his appeal on April 18, 2013, and the Sixth Circuit granted his motion the following day. On May 5, 2013, counsel for LMPERS advised the Corporation that it intends to voluntarily dismiss its appeal as well.

Plaintiffs in the Wolfe and LMPERS Actions alleged, in part, that Article Seventh of the Corporation’s articles of incorporation prohibited the special committee from, among other things, evaluating the merger. The Corporation considered these allegations and concluded that the Article is co-extensive with Ohio law and thus allows the Corporation to engage in any activity authorized by Ohio law. The Corporation also has consistently construed Article Seventh as permitting directors to approve a transaction so long as they are both disinterested and independent.

On April 17, 2013, R. David Wolfe filed a new derivative and putative class action (“Wolfe Action II”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the Corporation’s directors, certain members of the Weiss Family, and the Stone Entities, as well as the Corporation as a nominal defendant. Mr. Wolfe subsequently filed an Amended Complaint on April 29, 2013. The Wolfe Action II seeks a declaratory judgment that Article Seventh precludes the board and special committee from approving the merger. In addition, the Wolfe Action II includes a derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the Corporation’s directors for allegedly violating Article Seventh. Finally, the Wolfe Action II includes both a derivative and class action claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the Weiss Family defendants and the Stone Entities for allegedly seeking to acquire the minority shareholders’ interests at an unfair price. The Corporation’s response to the Wolfe Action II is not yet due.

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 outcome of the pending appeals or motions, and/or (iii) there are significant factual issues to be resolved. 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.