to be a “top hat” plan. A top hat plan is “unfunded” and exists primarily to provide “deferred compensation” to a “select group of management or highly compensated employees.” 29 U.S.C. § 1051(2); see Healy v. Rich Prods. Corp., 981 F.2d 68, 72 (2d Cir.1992). Substantial evidence supports the district court’s finding. ERISA’s participation and vesting rules govern the nonforfeitability requirements of plans covered by ERISA. 29 U.S.C. § 1053. ERISA exempts top hat plans from its nonforfeitability protection. Id. § 1051(2). ERISA’s failure to protect top hat plans from the forfeiture provisions contained in those plans allows a top hat plan to include enforceable noncompete forfeiture provisions even if these provisions are not enforceable under state law. See Bigda, 898 F.Supp. at 1016 (<HOLDING>); see also Lojek v. Thomas, 716 F.2d 675,
holding that noncompete provisions survived the expiration of an employment agreement where 1 the contract expressly provided that the provisions would continue to apply if the employee continued working and 2 the noncompete clause expressly stated it would continue to be in effect after the expiration or termination of employment 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 that plaintiffemployers claim that defendant violated noncompete agreement did not arise out of defendants businessrelated visits to new york holding that under arkansas law maximum duration of noncompete clause incident to employment agreement is three years 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