Did the Eleventh Circuit critically err by applying the limitations period at 29 U.S.C. § 1113(1)(A)?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED First Question In an issue of critical importance affecting approximately 13,000 Allstate retirees, as well as ERISA beneficiaries elsewhere, the Eleventh Circuit addressed the statute of limitations codified in 29 US.C. § 1113 for an ERISA § 502(a)(3) claim, which empowers a plan participant and others with standing to bring a civil action to obtain appropriate equitable relief. The Eleventh Circuit held that Plaintiffs were required to bring their action before a concrete injury occurred, thereby frustrating the purpose of ERISA and rendering the provision of “appropriate equitable relief” meaningless. The question is this: Did the Eleventh Circuit critically err by applying the limitations period at 29 U.S.C. § 1113(1)(A)? Second Question This Court’s decision in Cigna v. Amara addresses the forms of “appropriate equitable relief” available under ERISA § 502(a)(3), including the historical treatment of fraud in equity cases, such as breach of duty or breach of trust, and how fraud supports various forms of equitable relief. 29 U.S.C. § 1113 imposes an exception in fraud or concealment cases and allows an action to be commenced within six years after discovery of such fraud or concealment. The question is this: Was the Eleventh Circuit required to analyze Plaintiffs’ fraud claims under an “in equity” standard, as opposed to “in law,” and by not doing so, does its decision conflict with Cigna v. Amara?