Affirming the district court's holding that a man who sought to recover benefit plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act could not obtain relief because he sought benefits under a 'top-hat plan,' a kind of deferred compensation that is unfunded and maintained by an employer for key management or highly compensated employees, because such funds need not comply with many of the substantive provisions of ERISA and the defendant need not prove that plan participants had bargaining power in order to establish that the benefits were part of a top-hat plan.