底特律破产的赢家和输家

    底特律并不想陷入一场斗争。

    美国破产法官斯蒂芬•罗兹发布历史性裁定，允许这座一直深陷危机的城市寻求破产保护后，底特律市长戴夫•宾向云集而来的媒体表示：“我们必须让每个人因此而感受到的痛苦变得最小……我们并不希望让这座城市和领退休金的人们变得势不两立。”不过，尽管宾可能非常想避免一场斗争，但底特律却无论如何也逃不了这一劫。

    这座城市的财政与法律危机正在逐渐酝酿成一场激烈的斗争，让领退休金的人和债券持有人及城市居民变得势如水火。每一派都称他们完全有权拿到底特律的钱。但这座城市长期负债高达180亿美元，收入捉襟见肘，不可能所有人都拿到钱。

    下面就来分析一下这个裁定所造成的赢家和输家：

输家：领退休金的人

    周二这个裁定中令人大吃一惊的地方是，这个城市的职工退休金尽管受到州法律的明文保护，现在却可能要削减了。密歇根大学（University of Michigan）破产法教授约翰•包托说：“领退休金的人这次是最大的输家。他们原本还有希望赢，或者等待时机再战一场，但事实是，他们已经输了，这是很多人完全没料到的。”

    不过，罗兹非常谨慎地表明了，他并不一定会支持大幅削减退休金——只是他也不排除这种可能性。结果，领退休金的人尽管称自己受到州法律保护，现在却必须豁出去争取每个子儿。

    这位法官的裁定已经招来了批评。底特律大学（University of Detroit）法律教授拉里•杜宾在一封电子邮件中表示：“国家宪法保护（退休者）的权利，这和其他所有债权人不一样，但他们并不享有超过其他一般债权人的特别优先权。按照法官的说法，这么裁定可能是合法的，但在我看来却不怎么公平。”

赢家：债券持有者

    从理论上来说，退休金的钱少了，资本市场债权人的钱就多了。宾夕法尼亚州怀德纳法学院（WidenerLawSchool）教授朱丽叶•莫林洁罗说：“一方面，那些债券持有者欢呼‘太好了！退休金被砍了。’但别忘了，就算是这样也没有足够的钱付给他们。”

    实际上，现在底特律所有债权人都眼巴巴盯着总额将缩水的付款日。现在的问题只是到底届时到手的钱会少多少。不管最后结果如何，大家都会从最有利于债权人、包括领退休金的人的利益出发来评判。莫林洁罗称：“退休金可被削减并不意味着债券也能被削减。”再者，现在的紧急状态管理人、破产律师凯文•奥尔最初拟定的对债权人的赔偿方案也并不怎么大方。

    Detroit doesn't want a fight.

    After U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Steven Rhodes issued a landmark ruling allowing the beleaguered city to seek bankruptcy protection, Mayor Dave Bing told the assembled press core, "We have to mediate the least amount of pain for any one individual. … We don't want to be in a situation where we're pitting the city against the pensioners."

    But as much as Bing might want to avoid a battle, Detroit is going to get one anyway. The city's financial and legal troubles are shaping up to be a fierce contest, pitting pensioners against bondholders against city residents. Every party has a legitimate claim to Detroit's money. But with $18 billion in long-term liabilities and little in revenue, there's no way everyone will get paid.

    Here's a breakdown of the winners and losers from the ruling:

LOSER: Pensioners

    The big surprise from Tuesday's ruling was that city employee pensions, which are protected by state law, could now be reduced. "Pensions are big losers," says University of Michigan bankruptcy law professor John Pottow. "They could have either won, or lived to fight another day, but they actually lost, which I think people didn't predict."

    However, Rhodes was careful to stipulate that he wouldn't necessarily approve steep cuts in payouts to retirees -- only that he wouldn't rule it out. The bottom line is that pensioners, who argued that they were protected by state laws, will now have to fight for every dollar.

    The judge's call has already earned its share of blowback. "The State Constitution protects [retirees'] rights, unlike all other creditors, yet they receive no special priority over other general creditors," University of Detroit Mercy law professor Larry Dubin said in an e-mail. "May be legal, according to the judge, but doesn't seem fair to me."

WINNER: Bondholders

    Less money for pensions will, in theory, mean more money for capital markets creditors. "On the one hand, the bondholders say 'Woohoo! The pensions can be cut,'" says Juliet Moringiello, a professor at Widener Law School in Pennsylvania. "But remember, there's not enough money to pay them either."

    The reality in Detroit is that all creditors are looking at diminished paydays. The question now is by how much. Any outcome will have to be judged to be in the best interest of creditors, a category that includes pensioners. "Just because pensions can be cut doesn't mean that bonds can't be cut," Moringiello says. To boot, Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr's original proposal to creditors wasn't exactly generous.