Gibson’s Bakery “May Only Survive for the Next Couple of Months,” Pleads With Court To Collect Against Oberlin College
Court filing: “Speedy relief is necessary for the preservation of their historic business and the lifetime work of generations of Gibsons.”
It is over 3 years since Gibson’s Bakery obtained judgment against Oberlin College for almost $32 million, which with accumulated interest nears $36 million, the amount of a bond posted by the college through Zurich American Insurance to secure the judgment.
Neither “Grandpa” Allyn Gibson nor his son David Gibson lived to see the Gibson family collect. They both passed away, as Oberlin College waited them out.Oberlin College has done everything possible to delay the Gibson’s getting the money, including an appeal which the college lost and another appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, which has not yet ruled on whether it will hear the case. Because the appellate court ruling affirming the judgment included a mandate that the trial court “execute” on the judgment, the Gibsons moved in the trial court to collect the bond. The college then sought a stay from the Ohio Supreme Court. Neither the trial court nor the Ohio Supreme Court have ruled on the motions as of this writing, so the Gibson’s attempt to collect on the bond is in limbo.
Yesterday the Gibson’s filed a Motion To Enter Judgment or For Hearing in the trial court, pleading for a ruling on collection of the bond, because the bakery is on the verge of going out of business:
Plaintiffs Gibson Bros., Inc. and Lorna J. Gibson, as the executor and representative of the Estate of David R. Gibson and the Estate of Allyn W. Gibson (collectively “the Gibsons”) respectfully request that this Court schedule an oral hearing on or grant their Motion to Enter Judgment Against Surety Zurich American Insurance Company. The Ninth District Court of Appeals issued a mandate to the Trial Court which did not include a stay of execution. The delay in enforcing the unanimously affirmed judgment will result in irreparable harm to the Gibson family and their iconic bakery….
Gibson’s Bakery is a proud, 137-year-old, fifth-generation, family business. It has survived two World Wars, the Great Depression, and the Great Recession-but unless the Gibsons soon receive the judgment to which they are entitled, it may not survive the continuing consequences of Oberlin’s malicious and tortious conduct. The continuing conduct of which the Gibsons have become aware and which has brought the Gibsons to their knees include the following: Oberlin College’s authorized new student tour guides. are still being heard to say don’t shop at Gibsons Bakery when the tours pass in front of the store; neither the College, its administrators, nor its professors have resumed any ordering of the Gibson’s products for College events; and notices still denigrating the Gibsons are posted in College buildings for
students and their families to see.
Beginning with the College-supported business disruptions that are already in the record
and continuing to the present, Dave Gibson and his surviving widow, Lorna, have been required
to mortgage virtually all of their equity in their home and rental properties to remain viable. The
various mortgages are a matter of public record and undoubtedly the Gibsons’ financial distress
is known to Oberlin College. Now, Lorna estimates that unless there is a substantial change in
circumstances, the bakery may only survive for the next couple of months.
As Ohio courts have observed: “Justice delayed is justice denied’ may be an old adage, but it undoubtably rings true.” Adkins v. Commissioner of Social Security, S.D. Ohio No. 1 :20-cv-745, 2021 WL 6134139. The Gibsons are in need of speedy justice and an end to Oberlin’s delay tactics. The Gibsons respectfully request an oral hearing or granting of their motion to enter judgment on Zurich American Insurance Company’s supersedeas bond. Speedy relief is necessary for the preservation of their historic business and the lifetime work of generations of Gibsons.
For the full case history, see our tag Oberlin College – Gibson’s Bakery.
[Featured Image credit: Daniel McGraw for Legal Insurrection Foundation]
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
May the Gibsons prevail.
The Gibsons are good people. Oberlin management and administration, not so much.
I would have up vote your comment, but did not because Oberlin College is evil personified. “not so much” really understates their nature.
May Oberlin collapse. They are evil and they and all their graduates deserve failure.
Oberlin is vile and petty. Imagine if the table were reversed and other schools comparable to Oberlin did the same to them as Oberlin is doing to Gibson’s.
Imagine sending your child, hoping for a solid education, to a school so petty as to place signs throughout campus.
What do you think the family will do once they get the money? I would sell the business unless some of the younger ones have a passion for baking and business.
Probably. This business obviously depends on a single customer (the college and its students), and will not be viable under current ownership.
I’d bet big they never see a penny of it
If the college continues to hang posters stating don’t shop at Gibson’s, retore the full punitive damages! There needs to be a message sent to this institution of un-learning!
It’s so hard to believe the entire city has done this to these fine people
Gosendgive maybe cause this is NOT OK
Donations are fine, but mail orders are also a thing. If not for “muh condition,” I’d be ordering stuff by the crate and enjoying it all.
They don’t have much on offer from the bakery side and the items are fairly pricey. They only have a photo of one out of 4 pastries on offer. Have you looked at their website? Their business model is clearly based on in-person sales.
Yeah, but I bought a T shirt today. Not cheap, but would really like to see the store stay open.
Got my T-Shirt with a nice note from the family. Proud to support them. The T-shirt is like a coded message. Sorta like wearing a MAGA hat, but only certain people notice it. Invisible to the lefties.
It’s the college, not the city.
But the city dwellers know what’s going on amd in protest could help this family business survive easily!
It’s not their responsibility. They have not done this. They have no duty to fix it. Besides, if they took their business to this bakery, they’d be taking it away from wherever they’ve been shopping all these years. Why should those places suffer? Gibson’s business is built around the college, and what’s happening is all the college’s fault.
They don’t need donations. They’re rich. What they need is for their money to be delivered to them. The insurance company is holding it for them, and is simply waiting for a court order to transfer it to them. All that’s needed is for the court to actually issue the order. (As I understand it the court has already ordered Oberlin to pay, but it hasn’t yet specifically ordered the company holding the money to transfer it, and it can’t do so without an order.)
But donations might help tide Gibson’s over until they finally get that judgement delivered.
They are so rich they have mortgaged all their properties amd about to lose their business
What are you thinking? You
I’m thinking you’re an idiot. They have $36M sitting in escrow waiting for them. That makes them rich. I don’t have that; why would I give them a donation? Let them give me one. What they’re having now is an extreme cash flow problem. They could borrow against the judgment, or sell a share of it, but they don’t want to, and I don’t blame them. They’re informing the court of the circumstances, in the hope that it will release their money so they won’t have to borrow or sell.
No, cretin, that’s not what “rich” means. They DON’T HAVE THE MONEY YET. That’s the whole problem.
Back atcha little cowboy
This is an astonishing low, even for you.
1) not all states allow for a 3rd party loan from expected judgments/settlements
2) I could not think of a less worthy cause then for someone to donate money or anything to you
3) Just because there is an amount of money expected does not help someone who needs to put food on the table for their family today. That’s like saying someone who expects to inherit money “someday” is rich. They are not. Anything can happen, nothing is guaranteed.
There must not be any mirrors in your house, I can’t imagine that you can stand looking at yourself at all.
By definition someone who has $36M in assets is rich. Filthy rich, even. It makes no difference whether the money is liquid or accessible. Many rich people have most or all of their money tied up in illiquid assets, and they can’t readily access it. That’s not called being poor, it’s called having a cash flow problem.
And the fact is that they have all this money sitting there waiting for them. Of course they can borrow against it. What do you mean not all states “allow” it? How can a state stop it? It’s a private transaction between two people; where does the state get the authority to prevent it?
And it’s not an “expected” judgment; the judgment has already been handed down. The defendant has been ordered to pay up. That’s why the defendant is now desperately begging the supreme court for a stay, but it hasn’t been granted yet, so the only thing holding up payment is that the insurance company wants to see a court order directed to it to release the money. It’s just being cautious. There’s no real decision for the court to make; its more ministerial than anything else.
Escrow. Not in their bank accounts. The money in escrow has been there since the original verdict. There is a reason it is in escrow. They might not get it. You know this.
It was put in escrow when there was a possibility that they might not get it. The original verdict was being appealed, and pending that the defendant was not ordered to pay. But now the appeal was lost, and the defendant has been ordered to pay up. Even if the supreme court agrees to hear its appeal, the money still has to be released. Unless the supreme court orders otherwise, but it hasn’t done that. So the holdup is purely technical. And that’s why the Gibsons are moving for it to be released, and telling the court why it’s urgent to do so. That’s all.
The Ohio Supreme Court could take up the case dragging it out for months / years. The verdict could be overturned which would finish the business as the family knew it.
On another front the town of Oberlin’s Fire Department needs to make sure their equipment is in working order, I could see an insurance claim in the near future.
“Yitzy, how did you start a flood?”
It seems to me that Gibson’s closing is the whole point of Oberlin’s delay. I.e., if we delay long enough, they’ll go out of business.
Oberlin apparently has no shame. Are parents aware? If not, why not? If so, they should be ashamed as well. Wokeness is an insult to actual education.
Probably very few parents are aware–the college is certainly not going to advertise this sordid affair to prospective students.
On the other hand, I would expect virtually all parents & students to be very liberal to far-left, and therefore believe that few of them would disapprove of what Oberlin did.
And yet people send their kids to this God awful college
That’s how far we have fallen
The whole Oberlin experience was Gibson’s glazed donuts, in the early 60s/
I just bought some more SWAG from them. At least one attorney here in Portland recognized the T-shirt and what it represented.
And the whole wheat glazed donuts still worked in the 70’s.
Gee, sounds like a new case might be pending…..
Nope. Student tour guides are speaking for themselves, not for the college; the college is not responsible for their speech. The same applies to posters denigrating Gibson’s. And in any case, both students and the college itself are entitled to denigrate them and advise people not to shop there; that’s protected speech. The only thing they’re not entitled to do is make false statements of fact; the college did so, and that’s why they now owe $36M. As far as I know it hasn’t repeated that mistake.
And of course, regardless of everything else, nobody is required to buy from them. The court can hardly order the college to resume buying from the bakery! Let alone ordering the administrators and professors, who are not even a party to the case, to do so!
All of this damage is already done, and it’s all supposed to be covered by the $36M that’s waiting for them.
That is total nonsense! Student tour guides are acting as agents of the college and therefore anything they say is the responsibility of the college. No one could be a tour guide without the approval of the college. The college can and probably does train the guides on what they should and should not say. Allowing them to say anything negative about a local business can be the basis for a law suit.
No, it cannot. The supreme court has been very clear, numerous times, that there is a fundamental difference between high school and college: high school students are expected to assume that anything a teacher or staff member says or does is on the school’s behalf, while college students are expected to understand that everything a professor says, even while actually teaching, is his own speech and not that of the college. That’s why professors have academic freedom and high school teachers don’t. And it’s why professors are allowed to pray and to express religious opinions in class, while high school teachers are not.
Any student on a tour led, not by a paid staff member but by a student volunteer, understands that whatever the guide says is his own speech and not the college’s.
In any case, even if they were speaking for the college, they have every right to say anything negative they like about a business, except false statements of fact. “Don’t shop there” is not a statement of fact, so even the college itself could tell people that. “Gibson’s is racist” is also not a statement of fact, and the college itself is entitled to say it and can’t be sued for it. “Gibsons discriminates against black people” is a statement of fact, and it’s not true, and therefore actual college agents (not student volunteers) must be careful not to say that.
Student employees are not professors (you are mistaken in thinking that tour guides are volunteers..they most certainly are not).
They are not protected by academic freedom in the slightest. The college can definitely be held liable for any slanderous damage done by their employees. However, in this case, a bad review absent slander regarding racism is not a liability.
You’re wrong: American libel laws permit derogatory speech. As Milhouse points out, they can be sued for libel if they make false statements about factual matters, but not false statements of opinion. So they can be sued of they say Gibson’s has a documented pattern of race-based false arrests of black customers, but they cannot be sued for simply saying Gibson’s is racist.
How about tortious interference with business.?
Where’s the tort? You can’t have tortious interference without a tort. Simply urging people to boycott someone is free speech. There are literally dozens of cases making this very clear.
First Oberlin was interfering in Gibson’s business becove they coveted Gibson’s real estate holding, in my opinion they made the racist claims for that purpose. Now they are mad that their ass was kicked, that is the motive for continuing to interfer in their business, and now they hope to still get Gibson’s property.
Now, how is that for framing an interferience tort?
The posters, maybe, as long as the college doesn’t censor speech it disapproves of. When authorized tour guides are giving tours on behalf of the college, they’re representing the college and it is responsible.
See above. The college is not responsible for what volunteer student guides say, because it’s understood that they’re expressing their own opinions, not those of the college.
How well would that hold up if the student “volunteer” suggested a boycott of some local black owned business?
Understand your point, but the playing field isn’t level.
Libel law does not cover speech calling for boycotts.
Calling for a boycott is not a false statement of fact, so it can’t be libel. But if in the course of calling for the boycott you make a false statement of fact (even if it’s only implied, but the implication is clear), that is libel.
Even calling for an illegal boycott is protected speech, so long as it doesn’t cross the line between advocacy and incitement.
If a tour guide were to suggest a boycott of a black-owned business the college would certainly not allow that student to guide any more tours, and might even expel the student. But even if the college itself, on its own stationery and signed by the entire board, were to say openly “Don’t shop at any black-owned business, we hate black people and want them run out of town”, there would be nothing to sue for.
Race based discrimination is most definitely something you could sue for, and yes a college tour guide is the definition of speaking for the college.
Race based discrimination by an individual is not something you can sue for. Individuals are not covered by the anti-discrimination laws.
Race based discrimination by a covered entity such as a college, is something you can sue for; but advocating such discrimination is not. Covered entities are free to advocate discrimination all they like; they just can’t engage in it themselves.
They represent the college and are paid by the college. They most certainly are responsible
Tour guides are recruited, trained and work for the college. There are very strict guidelines given about what to say and not say. If Oberlin tour guides/representatives are regularly stating negative untrue (as already determined in a court of law) statements about a business in order to damage it…and the college knows and does nothing they ABSOLUTELY are liable. There is this thing called law school…you might want to look into it..
Sue that college to under the ocean
Anyone here know them and can set up a givegosend and get it published , like on Tucker
I’m not even sure that’s right, the givegosend
I do know I will never give money to gofundme no matter what
It’s already been sued for what it did, and it lost. What else do you propose suing it for?
Yes. There has to be a legal grounds for a lawsuit. So far the college is pursuing legal means to appeal that libel judgement. You can’t sue them for doing things which are legal.
The tours for one
The tours are protected speech. You can’t sue for them, even if the college explicitly tells the guides to say this.
If we didn’t know they had posted a bond, I would believe this was an attempt to postpone until Oberlin went out of business.
I’m sure that’s one of the motivations. Not that they’d get their money back, they wouldn’t, but that the bakery would go away. I thought the speculation that Oberlin wanted the property was very plausible, and even if it didn’t then I’m sure they want the people who cost them all that money not to have a very obvious storefront so close.
They’ve got some decent looking t-shirts in their online store… just popped on and bought one for me and one for my wife. These will be a nice way to say ‘f-you’ to local progs who keep up with this sort of thing.
The Bush era Republican or Libertarian or “MUH BIG GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” thing to do is nothing or just posting online.
However the conservative thing to do if you live in Ohio is write to your state officials about legislation on private colleges that would send a message to Oberlin and other colleges.
The Libertarian/Bush era approach got us to the point of zero influence over universities, lets try the conservative approach, if you live in Ohio get your state reps name and send him/her a letter (they get about 5-20 a week so yes they will notice)
I’d like to see some woke freshmen split off from the introductory tour group right after the “don’t shop here” announcement, and buy a nice box of brownies to pass around among themselves for the remainter of the tour.
You know if the tour guide said “don’t shop here” the next words will be why. Isn’t that the reason for the lawsuit? Seems they got a new lawsuit on their hands.
Nope. First of all, the guides aren’t speaking for the college, so the college isn’t responsible for what they say. Second, even as far as suing the guides themselves (assuming they had any money), they’re perfectly free to say “Because the owners are racist”. That’s an opinion, and therefore protected speech. The only thing they would have be careful about is not to make false statements of fact, such as that the store racially profiles customers, or that it falsely accuses black customers of shoplifting, etc. That’s what the college got in trouble for, and why it owes $36M. So any tour guide with a trust fund has to be careful not to say that. But opinions, no matter how wrongheaded, are protected speech.
The guides absolutely do speak for the college. I know you hate the concept of libel law but come on claiming people deputized by the college to speak for the college in an official capacity in order to advertise the college as the place to get your education…..I know you are smart enough that you don’t believe that not even for a second.
The college has a responsibility for what is claimed by people working for it (including deputized students who are officially speaking for the college).
Now if all that is stated is “it is college policy to boycott” that is one thing but if they libel it as a tour guide yes that is Oberlin speaking.
I’m sorry, but you’re just wrong. The students taking the tour understand perfectly well that the tour is led by a fellow student, not by an official university representative, and that zither speaks only for zitherself.
Milhouse can’t comprehend that the guides are actually working for the College. I was a student guide…it was a sought after well paid student job. Highly scripted by the University and even 98% of the questions you get have ready set answers. Weird how he thinks its just rando students running around grabbing visitors and engaging in free speech telling potential students how they feel about the school and town. It almost seems like Milhouse hasn’t ever been to an actual college campus…
I am responding to this one because I can’t respond to the one you did toward me directly.
The answer is you provided grade A bs.
A student tour guide yes is a student but a student working for the university with a mission given directly by the university who is very much made to comply with university standards (ask any college administrator). Yes they are agents of the university and do speak for them. The students understand that they are still students; they also understand they are students who’s word is very directly speaking for the university.
The tours aren’t just students giving something informal they are very much official things that you have to register for which is very much handled by the University.
I agree if all the tour guides say is boycott Gibson not liable but if they libel Gibson as the reason in the tour yes they have done so as agents of the University not as individuals.
The concept of the professor being an independent academic and university neutrality to be a safe place for exchange of ideas and debate is enshrined in law in a way that makes it impossible to sue a University for a professors libel (after all Universities can’t be discouraged from having a diversity of viewpoints) but tour guides aren’t professors they are giving approved speech from the college as a way to advertise it.
Yes institutions do speak through deputized agents, and the “boycott this place” without giving a reason is not actionable.
Your idea that an approved agent of an institution deputized to speak for it isn’t speaking for it though………Universities have classes on logic for a reason.
Unfortunately institutions are allowed to advocate boycott, and if tour guides plural are doing it it means the college has instructed them to do so and likely instructed them to say something like “I wasn’t told the reason” or some other way to avoid giving an answer, so if a parent or student asked “why” they would likely just get a no-comment answer avoiding another libel suite.
Best way forward would be the conservative way; write to your state rep if you are in Ohio and get some legislation making this behavior more costly in the future.
If the bakery goes out of business will Oberlin no longer be required to pay the Gibsons?
A Judgment belongs to the corporation. Having a “active business” isn’t required.
How much of the judgment is specific to the Gibson entity, i.e., corporation, LLC or however they are organized? Could they not file a chapter 11, showing a corporate judgment as an asset and get some assistance with marshalling receivables via the Trustee?
It is appalling that college tour guides seem to be telling prospective students that Gibson’s is a place not to shop. I have always felt that Oberlin’s goal was to drive them out of business. That way, in “Woke World”, Oberlin could whisper, “Who cares if it cost $36M, we held out until its owners died and got rid of that racist bakery”; and get cheered, more donations and more applications. “Think of that cost as advertising.”
It is appalling, but that’s the freedom of speech for you. It lets people say horrible and mean things, it lets them hurt other people’s feelings, reputation, and business. But it’s better than the alternative.
“Whoever eats at Joe’s will defecate.”
Unless, of course, you are a parent speaking out at a school board meeting against some of the crap going on in the Government schools, such as CRT, “Gender studies” for K-6, or porn in the school library. Then the DoJ will put assets towards you calling you a “domestic terrorist.”
Not simply for expressing your opinion. The parents who’ve had cops called on them all did more than that. They “disrupted” the meeting by refusing to sit down and shut up when told to do so, refusing to leave when told to do so, basically insisting forcefully on their rights and being “uppity” (I use that term deliberately, being fully aware of its historical connotations.)
In any case, there is never any guarantee that your rights won’t be violated; that’s physically impossible to guarantee. All the courts can do is guarantee that if and when your rights are violated you can come to them and they will correct things. The parents you refer to have always had that option, and some have availed themselves of it.
I am shocked you are against parents right to speak out and have fully adopted the lefts narrative.
Having your right to speak out at those meetings and continuing what you have to say even if it offends the school board absolutely is freedom of speech.
Unlike the right to libel, right to fighting words, and right to obscenity (all of which you have defended here) your right to speak out not just on political issues but in a government meeting actually is one of the areas of freedom of speech the original founding fathers would agree exists.
The rights of parents at school board meetings have according to videos I have been watching been violated in a way the founding fathers would say is appalling.
By the way one of the parents you are spitting on; his daughter raped and the school covers it up and he gets arrested for being loud and libeled as a violent extremist by a Pravda media to support a leftist narrative.
If you aren’t on the parents movement side you simply can’t be a conservative. You can’t surrender every issue and be conserving or restoring anything.
My first thought was that there has to be some way to sell a part of the judgement to a financial institution to raise operating money for the bakery to continue.
My second thought is the current Oberlin students are all wimps. Back when I was an undergrad if the university/university’ guides said ‘don’t go to Joe’s Bar to drink’ the result would have been the first thing students would have done would be drinking at Joe’s Bar.
Depends why. When I went to the University of Chicago it was a reasonably safe neighborhood, kept that way by the fourth-largest police force in the Illinois (and the University was terribly proud of having turned its security force into an accredited police agency just a year or two ago.) But it was surrounded on three sides by slums and on the fourth side by the lake. One of the things they told freshmen during orientation week was “Don’t go south” — because the drop from “safe neighborhood” to “dangerous neighborhood” was sharpest, and most of the students stood out from the denizens of that dangerous neighborhood by skin color. Not saying that no one went south of campus (a group of three boys in my dorm went to get a late night take-out dinner from a fast-food place there, and lost their wallets and watches as well as the chicken to a gang of about fifteen … and I went to a post office in the middle of the day once), but no one with half a brain went because they were told not to.
That is totally different and a safety issue
The usual order of operation is to obtain a judgment. The next step is to give notice of that judgment to the defendant. If the defendant satisfies the claim, case resolved. If the defendant is unable to satisfy the claim then appropriate notice is given the defendant and the general public of the claim. Subsequent action may follow by obtaining court ordered levy on assets. Methods of executing liens and levies varies in accordance with the character of property, real property vs personal property vs intangible property or rights to such assets.
Discounting or factoring of judgments would likely come at a very steep premium.
FWIW, it may be in the Gibson’s better interest to let the business close in a structured and controlled operation and stay focused on settling the decisions they hold in hand.
None of that is necessary. The money is sitting in escrow. The court has already ordered Oberlin to pay. All that’s required is a court order to the entity actually holding the money, instructing it to release it to its rightful owner.
The interest on the judgement keeps accumulating while Oberlin drags its feet, no? They are a bunch of feckless fugs!
Yes, it does.
I’ll upvote this comment merely because some hate-crazed POS downvoted it.
How long does it usually take for the Ohio Supreme Court to decide whether to take a case? Obviously, that is what the lower court is waiting for.
I’m sure that the Oberlin scum are overwhelmed with glee at Gibson’s distress.
After they collect they should make a whole collection of nastily misshapen chocolate crullers with sickening, half-embedded, wormy looking sprinkles and give them away free under the name of “Oberlin Stink Turds.”
I’d call them AM-bars.
Gibson’s as a going concern is over. No one with any sense would pay a dime to take over the business operating under that name. You can not force the school to trade with them as in the past and I’m betting any parent willing to fork over their over-priced fees for a very average quality education are aware of what went on and are sending their little toads for exactly the reason the university behaved in the manner which they did or at the very least, in spite of what happened.
Woke Libtards 1, America 0.
My son goes to Oberlin (and yes, is incredibly leftist/”woke”). It’s not an evil institution . . . probably the same as 90% of other colleges these days.
There is something going on in this saga, that isn’t completely understood. Has neither party found it in their interest to settle for some amount of $$$’s and some kind of apology/amend?
To me, that’s the “real story”.
Good . . . . . . day!
Ok, maybe it’s not an “evil institution,” but Evil now has a substantial foothold in the administration and culture of that institution, and based on vector math, it isn’t heading in the direction towards “good” and is traveling with substantial velocity.
The SS Apology sailed a long time ago, or more to the point, Oberlin sank it.
of course it’s an evil institution. If you had any moral sense you’d withdraw your son from it.
I assume the son is an adult, and thus Yuckster can’t “withdraw” him.
“Son, you can stay at Oberlin, but it’ll be on your dime.”
At the very beginning, the Gibsons offered to settle for no money, just a public admission and apology. Oberlin refused.
Just confirming for Yuckster, the shocking truth of Milhouse’s statement. Being “woke” appeared to have no financial bounds. Also, with the two prominent people at Gibson’s being one in the 90’s and the other with pancreatic cancer – both of whom have since died – I would bet this could have been settled for a lot less a long time ago (even after Oberlin declined the “no-cash” offer).
Therefore, institutional governance also seems to have been deficient.
I don’t think there’s anything left to completely understand.
RE Student Tour Guides making derogatory remarks about Gibson’s during their remarks to visiting prospective students, I don’t pretend to have a definitive answer. But I couldn’t help thinking about a tour we took ten years ago with our son at the University of Pittsburgh. There’s a famous sandwich shop in the area called The Original and when I went to Pitt for law school, we always called it “The Dirty O” (it was pretty grubby but their fish sandwiches were irresistible). When the student guide mentioned the same shop, I reminisced about The Dirty O and the guide got very uncomfortable and said that they had been instructed not to refer to it by that name.
Almost as thought the university was concerned about being sued for slander.
The stonewalling and waiting for the Gibsons to die must certainly be part of the vile Oberlin litigation team.
I don’t know how it works in this case, but in the commercial world there are enterprises called “factors.” You exchange your receivables for cash. This would surely be a receivable, but my guess is that the price of that exchange would be high.
Hard to imagine that Gibson’s can’t get a loan for part of the judgment, but I don’t know enough to know if it’s just my imagination, running away from me … LOL
I’m sure they can do this. They just don’t want to, and shouldn’t have to. Telling the court that they’re on the brink of closing down the business is a legitimate tactic to get the court to act soon.
When I was a financial guy, all I knew about factors was that they existed. I don’t know how much they charge, but I’m betting it’s akin to payday loans or pawn shops. I figure the Gibson’s motion is a legal tactic, but I’m no lawyer.
At this point the fault lies with the Ohio courts. They could end this today, if they wanted to. But delay is one of their weapons, as we see in the delay in the trials for the Jan 6 misdemeanors. It is the Ohio justice system that is now abusing the Gibsons, not Oberlin. And it is not uncommon.
Is a device such as a lien or garnishment (property, donations, cash tuition) against Oberlin not available to Gibson’s Bakery?
If the college continues to hang posters stating don’t shop at Gibson’s, retore the full punitive damages! There needs to be a message sent to this institution of un-learning!