Lululemon Calls Founder Chip Wilson "Misguided" in Public Shareholder Letter, Sets June 25 Annual Meeting

Lululemon Athletica has issued its first major public response to founder Chip Wilson, accusing him of harboring "outdated perspectives" and "troubling conflicts of interest" in a letter to shareholders, as the Vancouver-based athleticwear company draws a firm line ahead of its annual meeting scheduled for June 25.

The letter, reviewed ahead of publication, comes after settlement talks between the company and Wilson collapsed last week, escalating a proxy contest that has been building since late last year.

"Wilson, who stopped serving on the Board over a decade ago for well-documented reasons, has been attacking the company and the Board for many years, damaging the brand and hurting shareholders," the letter states. "Your Board firmly believes that replacing any of lululemon's directors with Mr. Wilson's less qualified nominees would endorse his misguided perspectives, deprive the company of critical skills and expertise, and risk derailing our progress in an especially pivotal time for our business and organization."

Wilson did not immediately return a request for comment.

At the June 25 annual meeting, shareholders will choose between two competing slates of director nominees. Lululemon is backing former Levi Strauss CEO Chip Bergh, former Unilever chief growth and marketing officer Esi Eggleston Bracey, and serial board member and former Gap finance chief Teri List. Wilson has put forward former ESPN chief marketing officer Laura Gentile, former Activision CEO Eric Hirshberg, and former On co-CEO Marc Maurer.

Wilson, who founded Lululemon in 1998 and stepped down as CEO in 2005 before departing as chairman in 2013, has argued that the company has suffered by "deprioritizing creative excellence at the altar of efficiency." In a shareholder letter last week, he called for "more proven, creative leaders" in the boardroom, writing that his three nominees "have all led organizations that only succeed when they out-create their competitors."

Lululemon, in its own letter, described its nominees as "vastly superior" and warned that electing any one of Wilson's picks "would result in a significant degradation of your Board's experience and expertise."

The two sides came close to a resolution before talks broke down. Lululemon's final offer included appointing two of Wilson's nominees after the annual meeting — up from a prior offer of one — and adding a third new director not on his slate but subject to his approval. The company also proposed creating an advisory brand product council that would include Wilson's third nominee.

Wilson rejected those terms, asking instead for the right to replace directors if his nominees left the board and full reimbursement of his campaign costs by the company, among other demands. Lululemon declined, and negotiations ended.

The proxy fight unfolds against a difficult business backdrop. Lululemon's shares have fallen nearly 43% in 2026 through Friday's close, as the company contends with a softening U.S. consumer, tariff headwinds, and intensifying competition in the athleisure category from brands including Vuori and Alo Yoga. When reporting fiscal fourth-quarter earnings in March, the company issued weak fiscal 2026 guidance and warned that both higher tariffs and the proxy battle with Wilson would weigh on its bottom line.

Lululemon has also pushed back on Wilson's standing as a neutral advocate, noting in regulatory filings that he has acknowledged advising Alo Yoga and Vuori — direct competitors of the company he founded.

Incoming CEO Heidi O'Neill, whose appointment Lululemon has defended as central to its turnaround strategy, is a key figure in the board's argument to shareholders that continuity of leadership is essential at what the company calls "an especially pivotal time."

With the annual meeting now set and settlement talks exhausted, the outcome rests with shareholders — and whichever slate they elect will inherit both a storied brand and a recovery effort that has so far failed to restore investor confidence.

Disclaimer