accounts at issue in Lee, for instance—do not allow their beneficiaries to make lump sum withdrawals. See ibid. The CCPA protects those particular accounts even though it does not protect lump sum distributions as a general rule. ■ Sayyed also contends that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., protects his retirement accounts from seizure. Doc. 168 at ¶ 9. Section 206(d)(1) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1), prohibits certain retirement plans from being “assigned or alienated,” which means that those plans’ assets typically cannot be seized to satisfy judgments. See Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers Nat’l Pension Fund, 493 U.S. 365, 371-72, 110 S.Ct. 680, 107 L.Ed.2d 782 (1990); cf. N.L.R.B. v. HHS Trucking, Inc., 755 F.3d 468, 470 (7th Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>). But the MVRA supersedes ERISA’s
holding that the proceeds of a pension plan could be garnished after they had been paid out to the beneficiaries holding that the son of a pension plan participant who had not been designated to receive any of his fathers pension benefits stood no closer to beneficiary status than any other person holding that the defendant withheld pension benefits in breach of the plan holding that an agreement may provide elements of a plan by setting out rules under which beneficiaries will be entitled to care holding that appropriate remedy was to compute service credit for veterans in accordance with vrra rather than pursuant to employers pension plan and requiring retroactive pension plan payments to be made