Well, when those companies go bankrupt, or out of business, I think that a judge should list the "golden parachutes" along with all the other "assets".
Why would a judge treat the golden parachutes different than a pension?
That's my question.
Seems to me, if you can't pay one, then you can't pay the other.
Calling a pension a "promise" is the problem. The golden parachute is probably spelled out, and enforced, through a "contract".