If you didn't read it, it's here:

http://www.freep.com/article/2013090...ptcy-Kevyn-Orr

If a pension fund granted a 13th check, annuity, or other enhancement that was not "accrued" -- that is, a mandatory payment, have the pensioners got more than what is constitutionally-mandated? Can the city prevail if it argues that, if these payments are $1B as the Free Press reports, that the "accrued" benefits are not unpaid, when unaccrued benefits were paid?

I'll bet you may hear that argument.

As I've indicated, the pension funds will likely reach a settlement because they don't want the precedential effects of losing, and I'm not sure they want more of these rocks turned over.

[[P.S. This really applies to DGRS and not DPFPS. The latter had much less of this stuff.)