in a deferral of income” to Lindsay “to the termination of covered employment or beyond,” the deferred compensation plan is covered by ERISA. Accordingly, ERISA preempts state common law regarding the enforceability of the noncompete forfeiture provisions of the plan. Clark v. Lauren Young Tire Ctr. Profit Sharing Trust, 816 F.2d 480, 481 (9th Cir.1987); Noell v. Am. Design, Inc., Profit Sharing Plan, 764 F.2d 827, 831 (11th Cir.1985); Hepple v. Roberts & Dybdahl, Inc., 622 F.2d 962, 965 (8th Cir.1980); Bigda v. Fischbach Corp., 898 F.Supp. 1004, 1014-16 (S.D.N.Y.1995). To determine the effect of ERISA on the forfeiture provisions in the plan, we must define the type of deferred benefit plan entered into between C & B and Lindsay. The district court found this pla (9th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>), Clark, 816 F.2d at 481-82 (holding state law
recognizing the applicability of choice of law clauses in contracts holding new york law may prohibit noncompete forfeiture provisions but erisa statutes allow forfeiture of all deferred compensation benefits under noncompete forfeiture provisions in a top hat plan holding even though idaho law does not permit the enforcement of noncompete clauses in employment contracts erisa statutes allow forfeiture of pension benefits in excess of erisas minimum vesting requirements in noncompete clauses holding that under title vesting clauses overhead property allocated to government contracts becomes property of federal government holding that government contracts must be read as if they included clauses required by law