Contingency	6 Months Ended
Aug. 30, 2013
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingency	Note 15—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 May 22, 2013, the Court preliminarily approved a full and final settlement of all the claims of the Wolfe and Collier estates, as well as the classes they seek to represent. As a result of the preliminary approval, the Court consolidated the two cases and certified 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 Corporation; (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 Corporation has received a death benefit on or before the date on which the Court enters the Order of Preliminary Approval. Required notices to potential class members and to state attorney generals as required under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 were mailed on May 30, 2013. On September 20, 2013, the Court entered a final order approving the settlement in the amount of $12.5 million. This amount was accrued prior to the first quarter of 2014. One half of the settlement amount was deposited by American Greetings Corporation into a settlement fund account on September 27, 2013, and the remaining half of the settlement amount will be deposited by American Greetings Corporation into the same settlement fund account on or before December 19, 2013. The settlement fund will be distributed in its entirety to those members of the class who present valid claims, their counsel, and a settlement administration vendor. 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. 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 Corporation against the members of the Board of Directors and, in certain cases, additional direct claims against American Greetings Corporation. 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 (the “State Court Action”). Lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs’ counsel also were appointed. On April 30, 2013, lead plaintiffs’ counsel filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The Consolidated Complaint brings a single class claim against the members of the Corporation’s Board of Directors for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting. The plaintiffs allege that the preliminary proxy statement on Schedule 14A filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“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 of Directors are also not independent. On June 13, 2013, defendants filed motions to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint based on plaintiffs’ failure to properly plead their claims as derivative actions, to exercise their statutory appraisal rights as the sole remedy for dissatisfaction with the proposed share price, and to overcome the business judgment rule with respect to their breach of fiduciary duty claims. The motions remain pending. On July 16, 2013, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) agreeing in principle to settle the State Court Action on behalf of themselves and the putative settlement class, which includes all persons who owned any interest in the common stock of American Greetings Corporation (either of record or beneficially) at any time between and including September 26, 2012 and the effective date of the Merger. A Stipulation of Settlement subsequently was filed with the Cuyahoga County Court on August 8, 2013, and the Cuyahoga County Court preliminarily approved the settlement on August 15, 2013 (amended order dated September 4, 2013). The settlement provides for dismissal with prejudice of the State Court Action and a release of claims against defendants and released parties. As consideration to class members, the Corporation agreed to and did disclose additional information via a Form 8-K relating to the Merger, which was filed with the SEC on July 18, 2013. In addition, defendants acknowledge that the State Court Action contributed to the Weiss family shareholders’ decision to increase the Merger consideration from $18.20 per share to $19.00 per share. The settlement also contemplates the payment of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses to class counsel, which the Corporation expects will be fully paid by the Corporation’s insurer. The settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, final certification of the settlement class and final approval of the proposed settlement by the Cuyahoga County Court. The Cuyahoga County Court has scheduled a hearing concerning, among other things, whether the settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the settlement class for October 24, 2013. There can be no assurance that the Cuyahoga County Court will approve the settlement. If the settlement conditions are not met, the proposed settlement would become void. 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. On April 18, 2013, plaintiff Wolfe moved to dismiss his appeal, which motion was granted on April 19, 2013. On May 8, 2013, plaintiff LMPERS’s moved to dismiss its appeal as well, which motion was granted. 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 Federal Court against the Corporation’s directors, certain members of the Weiss Family, and the Stone Entities, as well as the Corporation as a nominal defendant, challenging the Merger as financially and procedurally unfair to the Corporation and its minority shareholders. 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 of Directors 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. Defendants filed their Motions to Dismiss the Wolfe Action II amended Complaint on July 8, 2013. On August 1, 2013, the Federal Court granted the parties’ joint motion to defer briefings on defendants’ motions to dismiss and to stay the action pending resolution of the settlement of the State Court 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 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. In addition to the foregoing, we are involved in various judicial, administrative, regulatory and arbitration proceedings concerning matters arising in the ordinary course of business operations, including, but not limited to, employment, commercial disputes and other contractual matters. We, however, do not believe that any of the other litigation in which we are currently engaged, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial position or results of operations.

Note 15—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 May 22, 2013, the Court preliminarily approved a full and final settlement of all the claims of the Wolfe and Collier estates, as well as the classes they seek to represent. As a result of the preliminary approval, the Court consolidated the two cases and certified 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 Corporation; (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 Corporation has received a death benefit on or before the date on which the Court enters the Order of Preliminary Approval. Required notices to potential class members and to state attorney generals as required under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 were mailed on May 30, 2013. On September 20, 2013, the Court entered a final order approving the settlement in the amount of $12.5 million. This amount was accrued prior to the first quarter of 2014. One half of the settlement amount was deposited by American Greetings Corporation into a settlement fund account on September 27, 2013, and the remaining half of the settlement amount will be deposited by American Greetings Corporation into the same settlement fund account on or before December 19, 2013. The settlement fund will be distributed in its entirety to those members of the class who present valid claims, their counsel, and a settlement administration vendor.

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. 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 Corporation against the members of the Board of Directors and, in certain cases, additional direct claims against American Greetings Corporation. 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 (the “State Court Action”). Lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs’ counsel also were appointed.

On April 30, 2013, lead plaintiffs’ counsel filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The Consolidated Complaint brings a single class claim against the members of the Corporation’s Board of Directors for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting. The plaintiffs allege that the preliminary proxy statement on Schedule 14A filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“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 of Directors are also not independent. On June 13, 2013, defendants filed motions to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint based on plaintiffs’ failure to properly plead their claims as derivative actions, to exercise their statutory appraisal rights as the sole remedy for dissatisfaction with the proposed share price, and to overcome the business judgment rule with respect to their breach of fiduciary duty claims. The motions remain pending.

On July 16, 2013, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) agreeing in principle to settle the State Court Action on behalf of themselves and the putative settlement class, which includes all persons who owned any interest in the common stock of American Greetings Corporation (either of record or beneficially) at any time between and including September 26, 2012 and the effective date of the Merger. A Stipulation of Settlement subsequently was filed with the Cuyahoga County Court on August 8, 2013, and the Cuyahoga County Court preliminarily approved the settlement on August 15, 2013 (amended order dated September 4, 2013). The settlement provides for dismissal with prejudice of the State Court Action and a release of claims against defendants and released parties. As consideration to class members, the Corporation agreed to and did disclose additional information via a Form 8-K relating to the Merger, which was filed with the SEC on July 18, 2013. In addition, defendants acknowledge that the State Court Action contributed to the Weiss family shareholders’ decision to increase the Merger consideration from $18.20 per share to $19.00 per share. The settlement also contemplates the payment of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses to class counsel, which the Corporation expects will be fully paid by the Corporation’s insurer.

The settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, final certification of the settlement class and final approval of the proposed settlement by the Cuyahoga County Court. The Cuyahoga County Court has scheduled a hearing concerning, among other things, whether the settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the settlement class for October 24, 2013. There can be no assurance that the Cuyahoga County Court will approve the settlement. If the settlement conditions are not met, the proposed settlement would become void.

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. On April 18, 2013, plaintiff Wolfe moved to dismiss his appeal, which motion was granted on April 19, 2013. On May 8, 2013, plaintiff LMPERS’s moved to dismiss its appeal as well, which motion was granted.

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 Federal Court against the Corporation’s directors, certain members of the Weiss Family, and the Stone Entities, as well as the Corporation as a nominal defendant, challenging the Merger as financially and procedurally unfair to the Corporation and its minority shareholders. 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 of Directors 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. Defendants filed their Motions to Dismiss the Wolfe Action II amended Complaint on July 8, 2013. On August 1, 2013, the Federal Court granted the parties’ joint motion to defer briefings on defendants’ motions to dismiss and to stay the action pending resolution of the settlement of the State Court 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 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.

In addition to the foregoing, we are involved in various judicial, administrative, regulatory and arbitration proceedings concerning matters arising in the ordinary course of business operations, including, but not limited to, employment, commercial disputes and other contractual matters. We, however, do not believe that any of the other litigation in which we are currently engaged, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial position or results of operations.