Most definitions specify the employment termination is as a result of a merger or takeover,[1][2][3] also known as "change-in-control benefits",[4] but more recently the term has been used to describe perceived excessive CEO (and other executive) severance packages unrelated to change in ownership (also known as a golden handshake).
[citation needed] News reference volume of the term "golden parachute" spiked in late 2008 during the global economic recession, and 2008 US presidential debates.
[8] Despite the poor economy, in the two years before 2012 a study by the professional services firm Alvarez & Marsal found a 32% increase in the value of "change-in-control benefits" provided to US executives.
[11] The 2010 United States Dodd-Frank Act includes in its provisions a mandate for shareholder votes on any future adoption of a golden parachute by publicly traded firms.
[12] In Switzerland, a referendum which "would give shareholders the power to veto executive pay plans, including golden parachutes" was put to a vote on March 3, 2013.
A "prominent" mergers and acquisitions lawyer told the New York Times that "I have had a number of situations where we've gone to management looking to do a deal and been stopped at the door until a compensation arrangement was signed, sealed, and delivered."
[19] On June 29, 2013, The New York Times reported on research findings suggesting that "despite years of public outcry against such deals, multimillion-dollar severance packages are still common", and they continue to become "more complex and opaque".