Opinion ID: 779792
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lucente's Other Contentions

Text: 54 Lucente continues to press the argument, raised unsuccessfully before the district court, that his restricted stock was not subject to forfeiture under the terms of the 1982 Plan. He relies on paragraph 13 of that Plan, which provides that IBM's obligation to make any payment under the Plan is subject to the condition that for the entire period of deferral or restriction the employee shall not render services for any organization that competes with IBM. Lucente argues that the delivery of restricted stock does not fall under paragraph 13. This argument need not detain us long. 55 As the district court correctly found, the 1982 Plan is replete with references to payment in conjunction with restricted share awards. Lucente I, 117 F.Supp.2d at 343. Moreover, the preamble to the 1982 Plan states that all awards are subject to the [r]estrictions on transferability, and conditions of forfeiture set out in paragraphs 7(c), 8, 12, and 13 of the Plan. (R. at 62) (emphasis added). In short, the terms of the 1982 Plan unambiguously establish that restricted stock awards are indeed subject to forfeiture. 56 Equally unavailing is Lucente's claim that awards under the 1982 Plan are not forfeitable because the Plan is a pension plan covered by ERISA. This argument was not properly preserved for appeal, as Lucente never raised it below and the district court did not address it in any of its opinions. Caiola v. Citibank, N.A., 295 F.3d 312, 327 (2d Cir.2002). Even if the issue were ripe for review, however, the 1982 Plan is clearly exempted from ERISA's non-forfeitability provisions. See 29 U.S.C. § 1051(2) (exempting plans that are unfunded and designed primarily to provide deferred compensation for select executives); Demery v. Extebank Deferred Comp. Plan(B), 216 F.3d 283, 287-88 (2d Cir.2000). 57