????底特律并不想陷入一場斗爭。

????美國破產法官斯蒂芬?羅茲發布歷史性裁定，允許這座一直深陷危機的城市尋求破產保護后，底特律市長戴夫?賓向云集而來的媒體表示：“我們必須讓每個人因此而感受到的痛苦變得最小……我們并不希望讓這座城市和領退休金的人們變得勢不兩立。”不過，盡管賓可能非常想避免一場斗爭，但底特律卻無論如何也逃不了這一劫。

????這座城市的財政與法律危機正在逐漸醞釀成一場激烈的斗爭，讓領退休金的人和債券持有人及城市居民變得勢如水火。每一派都稱他們完全有權拿到底特律的錢。但這座城市長期負債高達180億美元，收入捉襟見肘，不可能所有人都拿到錢。

????下面就來分析一下這個裁定所造成的贏家和輸家：

輸家：領退休金的人

????周二這個裁定中令人大吃一驚的地方是，這個城市的職工退休金盡管受到州法律的明文保護，現在卻可能要削減了。密歇根大學（University of Michigan）破產法教授約翰?包托說：“領退休金的人這次是最大的輸家。他們原本還有希望贏，或者等待時機再戰一場，但事實是，他們已經輸了，這是很多人完全沒料到的。”

????不過，羅茲非常謹慎地表明了，他并不一定會支持大幅削減退休金——只是他也不排除這種可能性。結果，領退休金的人盡管稱自己受到州法律保護，現在卻必須豁出去爭取每個子兒。

????這位法官的裁定已經招來了批評。底特律大學（University of Detroit）法律教授拉里?杜賓在一封電子郵件中表示：“國家憲法保護（退休者）的權利，這和其他所有債權人不一樣，但他們并不享有超過其他一般債權人的特別優先權。按照法官的說法，這么裁定可能是合法的，但在我看來卻不怎么公平。”

贏家：債券持有者

????從理論上來說，退休金的錢少了，資本市場債權人的錢就多了。賓夕法尼亞州懷德納法學院（WidenerLawSchool）教授朱麗葉?莫林潔羅說：“一方面，那些債券持有者歡呼‘太好了！退休金被砍了。’但別忘了，就算是這樣也沒有足夠的錢付給他們。”

????實際上，現在底特律所有債權人都眼巴巴盯著總額將縮水的付款日。現在的問題只是到底屆時到手的錢會少多少。不管最后結果如何，大家都會從最有利于債權人、包括領退休金的人的利益出發來評判。莫林潔羅稱：“退休金可被削減并不意味著債券也能被削減。”再者，現在的緊急狀態管理人、破產律師凱文?奧爾最初擬定的對債權人的賠償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.