Oberlin College ordered to post $36 million bond to delay Gibson’s Bakery collection of Judgment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't understand the tort here.

Did Oberlin administrators officially declare that the bakery is "racist"? Oberlin has zero control over what its adult students decide to protest (or not protest).

Oberlin cancelled its contract with the bakery. But that in itself does not constitute slander.

Someone please explain to me how Oberlin THE INSTITUTION is culpable?

Wasn’t an Oberlin administrator organizing and leading some of the protests? It wasn’t just students, as I recall.

Yes. NPR had an interview.

Here's a link. The person being interviewed was not the president at the time of the initial protests.

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/22/735005809/oberlin-college-president-on-bakery-case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't understand the tort here.

Did Oberlin administrators officially declare that the bakery is "racist"? Oberlin has zero control over what its adult students decide to protest (or not protest).

Oberlin cancelled its contract with the bakery. But that in itself does not constitute slander.

Someone please explain to me how Oberlin THE INSTITUTION is culpable?

An African-American Oberlin student, Jonathan Aladan, went to Gibson’s Bakery and attempted to leave with two wine bottles under his shirt. The shop-owner’s grandson, Allyn Gibson, called the police and then apprehended the student outside the store, leading to a fight, which, later, also involved two black females. The police broke it up, arrested all three students and charged them with crimes – they later pleaded guilty, and made statements absolving Gibson’s of any misconduct or racial animus.

Immediately after the shoplifting arrests, Oberlin students began accusing the bakery of racial profiling. They launched protests, handing out fliers telling people ‘DON’T BUY’ and alleging that the bakery was ‘a RACIST establishment with a LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION’. They also began spreading rumours in the town that Aladan was ‘assaualted’ by Gibson even though, when the police arrived, they found the students punching and kicking Gibson. Leaflets recommended 10 rival businesses to which patrons could go instead.

But such a stance misses a major part of the story – Oberlin hasn’t been punished for the actions of its students. Rather, the college itself has been found responsible for getting involved with the smear campaign against Gibson’s.

The court found against the college’s administration, and particularly against its vice-president and dean of students, Meredith Raimondo, because they actively supported the protestors – it’s not necessarily the case that the administrators were leading any campaign against the bakery, but they were certainly working closely together. Raimondo helped to orchestrate the protest, speaking on a bullhorn and handing out the aforementioned fliers (protestors were allowed access to administration offices to make more copies). Students were attended the protest were excused from classes, and officials provided free pizza and drinks for them.

A Facebook post by an Oberlin academic department stated that “Gibson’s has been bad for decades, their dislike of Black people is palpable. Their food is rotten and they profile Black students. NO MORE!” A few weeks later, Raimondo ordered the college’s cafeteria to stop buying food from Gibson’s – another official tried to use this as leverage against the bakery, stating that “once the charges are dropped, orders will resume”. The chief of staff, Ferdinand Protzman, also suggested another reason for this – the administration feared that the students would create a “tantrum” on campus, especially in the cafeteria during dinner, by throwing Gibson’s food on the floor and stomping on it. “Doesn’t that sound more like a nursery school than a college?” asked the bakery’s lawyer.

Because of the college’s war against them, Gibson’s claimed that they suffered damage to their reputation, economic welfare and community standing, and the jury appeared to agree with them. Their sales dropped by roughly 50%, forcing staffing cuts, and many of the family members had to work without pay. Some of their employees had their tyres slashed. On multiple occasions, they tried to settle with Oberlin but, after constant refusals, were forced to bring about a lawsuit.

Members of the local community also turned out to support the bakery, and to argue against any suggestion of racial bias. Over a five-year period, 40 people were charged with shoplifting from Gibson’s, 6 of whom were African-American (percentage-wise, exactly matching Oberlin’s 15% black population). Across the town, 83% of all shoplifting arrests were Oberlin students – in 2017, the ‘Culture of Theft’ was even discussed fondly in the school’s magazine. One local bookstore owner said that she loses $10,000 a year in stolen goods to Oberlin students.

https://theboar.org/2019/07/oberlin-and-the-us-culture-war/

WOW! That is crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The college will never make good on this judgment. They just won't.

What's the bakery going to do about it? Sue them, again?

They'll never see more than a token fraction of of that judgement. The college will stiff them.

You don't understand how this stuff works.

Actually, I do.

I was awarded a judgment against a small publisher of technical publications over copyright violations and subsequent defamation. It was not a huge sum of money, but it was sizable to me, representing about a years' income.

This was in 2002.

I received $2,700. About 2% of the total judgment. That's it. That was 17 years ago.

There is literally no enforcement means available to me to collect it. Attorneys aren't interested, it's too small for their time. Collection agencies aren't interested because it's too much trouble.

So they got away with it. And Oberlin will, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The college will never make good on this judgment. They just won't.

What's the bakery going to do about it? Sue them, again?

They'll never see more than a token fraction of of that judgement. The college will stiff them.

You don't understand how this stuff works.

Actually, I do.

I was awarded a judgment against a small publisher of technical publications over copyright violations and subsequent defamation. It was not a huge sum of money, but it was sizable to me, representing about a years' income.

This was in 2002.

I received $2,700. About 2% of the total judgment. That's it. That was 17 years ago.

There is literally no enforcement means available to me to collect it. Attorneys aren't interested, it's too small for their time. Collection agencies aren't interested because it's too much trouble.

So they got away with it. And Oberlin will, too.

You go at a $135k judgment and the attorney who assisted you wasn’t willing file the paperwork to enforce the judgment? There’s something a little off in your story.

As for this one, go ahead and read, you’ll see where this is different.

[Anonymous]

As one who regularly collects judgments for clients I would obverse that most lawyers have no idea how to collect a judgment. They can get judgments but they have no idea how to get to the money.

In the Oberlin case, there are three sets of assets. Current assets like their operating bank account, their real estate & personal property and the endowment. The endowment is the most likely target. Now the endowment in held in various assets, there may be some difficulty in liquidating thr assets. Further Oberlin is going to have a problem because they say only a small amount is unrestricted, nut a significant portion is board restricted which the court will disregard. From their website the investments are invested in a general investment pool. So it really doesn't matter about being restricted, money is fungible and the plaintiffs can take their cash and ley Oberlin worry about the accounting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The ultimate irony would be if this judgment against the College ends up bankrupting it and leading to its demise, which would decimate the town of Oberlin and its businesses, including the bakery.

Guessing the owners are going to make out just fine here, though. Multigenerational wealth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The college will never make good on this judgment. They just won't.

What's the bakery going to do about it? Sue them, again?

They'll never see more than a token fraction of of that judgement. The college will stiff them.

You don't understand how this stuff works.

Actually, I do.

I was awarded a judgment against a small publisher of technical publications over copyright violations and subsequent defamation. It was not a huge sum of money, but it was sizable to me, representing about a years' income.

This was in 2002.

I received $2,700. About 2% of the total judgment. That's it. That was 17 years ago.

There is literally no enforcement means available to me to collect it. Attorneys aren't interested, it's too small for their time. Collection agencies aren't interested because it's too much trouble.

So they got away with it. And Oberlin will, too.

You go at a $135k judgment and the attorney who assisted you wasn’t willing file the paperwork to enforce the judgment? There’s something a little off in your story.

As for this one, go ahead and read, you’ll see where this is different.

DP - notalawyer here:
But the pp’s small judgement seems like apples and oranges. Oberlin has a huge endowment. They absolutely have that money, and I’m certain plenty of attorneys will be happy to squeeze for the juice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ultimate irony would be if this judgment against the College ends up bankrupting it and leading to its demise, which would decimate the town of Oberlin and its businesses, including the bakery.

Guessing the owners are going to make out just fine here, though. Multigenerational wealth.

Yes, I’m sure that a small town bakery owner is positively swimming in cash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ultimate irony would be if this judgment against the College ends up bankrupting it and leading to its demise, which would decimate the town of Oberlin and its businesses, including the bakery.

Guessing the owners are going to make out just fine here, though. Multigenerational wealth.

Yes, I’m sure that a small town bakery owner is positively swimming in cash.

They just won’t massive judgment, right? Did you miss that part of the story?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ultimate irony would be if this judgment against the College ends up bankrupting it and leading to its demise, which would decimate the town of Oberlin and its businesses, including the bakery.

Guessing the owners are going to make out just fine here, though. Multigenerational wealth.

Yes, I’m sure that a small town bakery owner is positively swimming in cash.

They just won’t massive judgment, right? Did you miss that part of the story?

^ won a

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The ultimate irony would be if this judgment against the College ends up bankrupting it and leading to its demise, which would decimate the town of Oberlin and its businesses, including the bakery.

Sorry the judgment bothers you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In 2017 they had budget problems due to missed enrollment estimates. Unknown whether this most recent event will cause similar problems next year.

Well it’s hard to see it helping. But as long as privileged people who couldn’t quite make it into a better ranked school need a third choice safety, it’ll be fine, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The college will never make good on this judgment. They just won't.

What's the bakery going to do about it? Sue them, again?

They'll never see more than a token fraction of of that judgement. The college will stiff them.

False.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this mean what you think it means.

This is an appeal bond to keep the Bakery from being able to pursue Oberlin's assets while the appeal in pending, and it is utterly routine. An appeal could potentially take years, and Oberlin doesn't want to let the Bakery take the money now and then have to fight to get it back if the judgments is overturned (because what are the odds this Bakery will still have $36 million in cash lying around in a few years?). But the Bakery also doesn't want to take the risk that Oberlin will deplete all of its assets in those three years. Granted, an institution like Oberlin is unlikely to do that, but in your more routine civil case between individuals, lots of people would rather get rid of their money the way they want (making themselves judgment-proof) than hand it over to someone they've been fighting with.

So instead of paying now, Oberlin contacts a bond company. They pay the bond company a certain amount (probably 10% or less), and the bond company files an agreement with the court that when/if the judgment needs to be paid after the appear is done, they will pay it if Oberlin doesn't. The Bakery doesn't get the money now, but it knows the money is secure if they win on appeal, so it's better than nothing for them. If Oberlin wins, or if it loses but Oberlin pays the judgment, the bond company keeps the amount Oberlin puts up and everyone goes home. If Oberlin loses on appeal and fails to pay the judgment, the bond company pays it and then chases Oberlin for the recovery.

Does interest accrue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ultimate irony would be if this judgment against the College ends up bankrupting it and leading to its demise, which would decimate the town of Oberlin and its businesses, including the bakery.

Sorry the judgment bothers you.

Right ?!?!

Seriously. It's as though PP WANTS the bakery punished for prevailing, so it can then be blamed for wiping out the town.




And yet no anger at all towards the thief who started it, or the administration who doubled down on stupid.


Amazing.