DOL/EBSA investigation SOL

Group, I apologize if this has been answered some time ago but how many years back can the Department of Labor go when investigating potential breach of fiduciary duties related to an ESOP? 

I thought there was a 3 yr SOL under IRC 6501 similar to an irs assessment. 

But can't seem to find a case on point. 

I seem to be getting conflicting information in my own initial research and discussing with clients general counsel. 

Anyone have a case where DOL was outside of their SOL in asking for information from 10 years prior? 

Thoughts and comments appreciated. 

ERISA 413, earlier of six years after the date of the last action concerning the breach or three years after the claimant had actual knowledge of the breach.

Yes, I've seen action against ESOPs 10-15 years after for allowing the seller to be paid too high a value for their stock.  Argument was that the leveraged loan was an ongoing breach and that the clock hadn't started on the SOL nevermind when the buyout payment was actually made.

Here’s the statute:

ERISA § 413 [unofficial compilation 29 U.S.C § 1113]         Limitation of actions

No action may be commenced under this title [I] with respect to a fiduciary’s breach of any responsibility, duty, or obligation under this part [4], or with respect to a violation of this part [ERISA §§ 401-414], 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.

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:29%20section:1113%20edition:prelim)%20OR%20(granuleid:USC-prelim-title29-section1113)&f=treesort&edition=prelim&num=0&jumpTo=true

For subsection (1)’s statute of repose, an action based on a fiduciary’s decision initially made more than six years ago is not completely barred if a fiduciary breached a duty to review earlier decisions.

For subsection (2)’s statute of limitations, court decisions split on whether “actual knowledge” is just actual knowledge of the facts that constitute a breach, or actual knowledge that the facts constitute a breach. For either interpretation, the Supreme Court held “actual knowledge” means the plaintiff actually knew the information.

Section 413’s last phrase refers to “fraud or concealment”. At least one appeals court opinion interprets “concealment” not to require evidence of a fraudulent intent. That opinion did so by looking to the common law of equitable remedies. Further, the idea of preferring an interpretation that doesn’t treat any word of a text as meaningless or irrelevant supports such an interpretation.

Also, the Secretary of Labor’s ERISA § 504 investigation powers are not limited by ERISA § 413. First, one would not know when a statute-of-limitations period ends until one had completed the investigation of the facts. Further, even if the facts found do not support a timely action grounded on a fiduciary’s breach of its responsibility to the plan, there are several other kinds of legal and equitable relief the Secretary might pursue that would not be constrained by the six-year statute of repose.

Thank you for responses! 

Very helpful.