Opinion ID: 175947
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ERISA's statute of limitations

Text: ERISA's statute of limitations provides for three-year and six-year time periods during which a plaintiff may bring suit: No action may be commenced under this subchapter with respect to a fiduciary's breach of any responsibility, duty, or obligation under this part . . . after the earlier of (1) six years after (A) the date of the last action which constituted a part of the breach or violation, or (B) in the case of an omission the latest date on which the fiduciary could have cured the breach or violation, or (2) three years after the earliest date on which the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the breach or violation; except that in the case of fraud or concealment, such action may be commenced not later than six years after the date of discovery of such breach or violation. 29 U.S.C. § 1113. So even though an ERISA plaintiff alleging a breach of fiduciary duty generally has six years in which to file suit, this period may be shortened to three years when the victim had `actual knowledge of the breach or violation.' Wright v. Heyne, 349 F.3d 321, 327 (6th Cir.2003) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1113(2)). Actual knowledge means knowledge of the facts or transaction that constituted the alleged violation. Id. at 330. An ERISA plaintiff has actual knowledge when he or she has knowledge of all the relevant facts, not that the facts establish a cognizable legal claim under ERISA. Id. at 328. In Wright, this court specifically rejected an interpretation of actual knowledge adopted by at least two other circuits that requires a showing that plaintiffs actually knew not only of the events that occurred which constitute the breach or violation but also that those events supported a claim for breach of fiduciary duty or violation under ERISA. Id. at 327-28, 330 (quoting Int'l Union v. Murata Erie N. Am., Inc., 980 F.2d 889, 900 (3d Cir. 1992)).