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. In June 2025, they filed a lawsuit against Jeld-Wen Holdings Inc., Gallagher Fiduciary Advisors LLC, and the Jeld-Wen Retirement Benefits Administration Committee for the company’s 401(k) savings plan, along with up to 30 members of the Administrative Committee, alleging they consistently selected higher cost and worse performing investment options. Those decisions reduced retirement funds, the couple alleges.
On Friday, August 21, the Honorable Mary M. Rowland of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, dismissed parts of the lawsuit, while allowing the Krings to file an amended complaint if they comply with court orders.
As fiduciaries to the retirement plan, the Krings say that defendants were “obliged at all times to act (1) prudently, (2) for the exclusive benefit of participants and beneficiaries, and (3) abstain from prohibited transactions.” Instead, they allege that Jeld-Wen et. al. failed to do so by consistently selecting higher cost and worse performing investment options that reduced participants’ retirement funds.
The Krings point to a “lack of prudent process,” alleging that 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 that Gallagher holds as much responsibility for the low-performing 401(k) results as Jeld-Wen.
Plaintiffs point out that the IPS lists nine factors that outline how each investment option or fund shall be selected: (1) investment discipline, (2) performance, (3) down-market performance, (4) statistical analysis, (5) expenses, (6) size of the fund, (7) analysis to find skilled and experienced investment personnel, (8) fund outlook having to do with performance expectation of each fund’s manager, and (9) the experience and credentials of the management personnel. The Krings allege that the defendants “did not follow their IPS or any prudent process in selecting the funds for the plan because defendants consistently selected funds with high costs, high risk and low returns that performed dismally on every statistical metric that Defendants allegedly considered under its IPS.”
In the 66-page complaint, plaintiffs point out 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.” TCW lagged its peers by 1.4% per year and by 1.54% per year over the earlier five years, the case suggests. The Krings and their legal representatives allege that the portfolio manager’s lack of skill resulted in a loss of $2,014,350 for participants from 2019 to December 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.” In a bid to clear their name, Gallagher’s Motion to Dismiss was accompanied by a 30-page “Memorandum of Law,” and an additional 11 exhibits, supporting their stance that the plaintiffs’ investment claims against Jeld-Wen would still fail. The Defendants argue 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.
The Honorable Mary M. Rowland largely agreed with Jeld-Wen and Gallagher, opting to rule that all claims are dismissed without prejudice, aside from plaintiffs’ claim seeking retrospective relief based on payments made to Gallagher. She is allowing the Krings to file an amended complaint if they strictly comply with the court’s order and cure the deficiencies as discussed. If plaintiffs choose to amend, they are required to clarify which defendant is being sued in each count.
The Plaintiffs have until September 14 to file an amended complaint. An in-person status hearing is set for September 3, 2026 to discuss a discovery schedule.