Many Americans rely on 401(k) plans for their retirement incomes. Kenneth and Elizabeth Kring are among them. As employees of Jeld-Wen, the Krings were expecting a comfortable retirement, but began to question how much was in their plans and how funds were managed.
The Krings filed a lawsuit in June 2025 against Jeld-Wen Holdings Inc., Gallagher Fiduciary Advisors and the Jeld-Wen Retirement Benefits Administration Committee for the company’s 401(k) savings plan, alleging they consistently selected higher-cost and worse-performing investment options. Those decisions reduced retirement funds, the couple alleges. As fiduciaries to the retirement plan, the Krings say that defendants were “obliged at all times to act prudently, for the exclusive benefit of participants and beneficiaries and abstain from prohibited transactions.”
The couple alleges that the defendants instead failed to do so by selecting higher-cost and worse-performing investment options that reduced participants’ retirement funds.
Krings Allege Fiduciary Failures
The Krings point to a “lack of prudent process,” alleging that the defendants failed to “monitor underperforming investments,” ignoring the Jeld-Wen Investment Policy Statement (IPS), and selecting “underperforming share classes to the detriment of the plan participants.” The Krings suggest Gallagher holds as much responsibility for the low-performing 401(k) results as Jeld-Wen.
In a 66-page complaint, the couple notes that in 2007, the fund “lagged behind peers with similar risks, aims, rewards and characteristics … by almost sixty basis points per year (0.57%)” and that the “same dismal performance lookback remained true in 2019, using the IPS lookback period of three years.” The Krings allege that the portfolio manager’s lack of skill resulted in a loss of $2,014,350 for participants from 2019 to Dec. 31, 2024.
Jeld-Wen and Gallagher objected to these characterizations, each filing a motion to dismiss in September 2025. Gallagher argued that the Krings lack “Article III standing to assert some of the claims asserted” as well as “standing to seek some of the relief requested.” The fiduciary company also contested the lawsuit, noting that the plaintiffs’ argument “fails to satisfy the basic pleading standards under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 10 and fails to allege a plausible claim for relief.”
Jeld-Wen, Gallagher Seek Dismissal
In a bid to clear their name, Gallagher filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the complaint does not offer facts about the fiduciary process or allow an inference that the fiduciary process was flawed. Jeld-Wen and the Retirement Benefits Administration Committee leaned on Gallagher’s arguments and memorandum of law in their motion to dismiss.
Judge Mary Rowland of the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, largely agreed with Jeld-Wen and Gallagher’s arguments, opting to rule that all claims are dismissed without prejudice, aside from Krings’ claim seeking retrospective relief based on payments made to Gallagher. She has allowed the Krings to file an amended complaint if they comply with court orders.