Chip Wilson, the mercurial founder of Lululemon, has reopened a battle over the company he started — this time by nominating three new directors in what looks very much like the start of a proxy fight.
What happened
On Monday Wilson formally put forward three independent director candidates to Lululemon’s board: Marc Maurer, the former co‑CEO of rival premium brand On; Laura Gentile, the ex‑chief marketing officer of ESPN; and Eric Hirshberg, the former CEO of Activision. The move comes just weeks after Lululemon stunned the market by announcing the departure of CEO Calvin McDonald without a clear successor. A company that once seemed bulletproof in athleisure has lost more than 40% of its market value in 2025, and Wilson — now one of the largest individual shareholders — says the board needs new “visionary creative leadership.”
Wilson is not seeking a seat for himself. Instead, he frames the effort as a corrective: shareholders, he argues, have lost faith in a board that failed to produce a succession plan and has overseen weakening product differentiation and flagging growth.
Lululemon has installed its CFO Meghan Frank and Chief Commercial Officer André Maestrini as interim co‑CEOs while it searches for a permanent leader. The company did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the nominations.
Why it matters
This is not just a founder sulk. Two features make the episode significant.
First, the timing. A CEO exit with no obvious successor creates a window in which governance changes can be decisive. Whoever controls the board will shape the search for the next chief executive — and, by extension, the strategy for restoring the brand’s creative edge.
Second, the contest is taking place amid other shareholder pressure. Elliott Investment Management has built roughly a $1 billion stake in Lululemon and is pushing for former Ralph Lauren executive Jane Nielsen to take the helm. While Wilson says he is not coordinating with Elliott, the two campaigns could intersect in messy ways: investors seeking change have multiple paths to influence outcomes, from tactical board votes to negotiating behind the scenes.
The nominees themselves are telling. Maurer brings direct category experience from On, a fast‑growing rival that has siphoned premium athletic customers. Hirshberg offers entertainment and brand‑building credentials from his time at Activision. Gentile’s marketing resume at ESPN signals an emphasis on storytelling and consumer engagement. Together, they read as a push to reframe Lululemon less as a retail operator and more as a brand that must recapture cultural relevance.
Market reaction was muted but positive: shares ticked up modestly on the news, a hint that investors see room for a board reset to help stabilize the company.
The context: why Lululemon stumbled
After years of near‑secular growth, Lululemon has faced a confluence of challenges. Fresh competitors such as Alo Yoga, Vuori and On have eaten into its market share with modern designs and aggressive direct‑to‑consumer moves. Some analysts say recent collections at Lululemon haven’t felt sufficiently distinctive — the brand appears to have traded its proprietary fit and finish for louder branding and less refinement in places. That perception matters: premium customers expect both product innovation and a consistent brand narrative.
Wilson’s history with the company colors his intervention. He stepped away from day‑to‑day control years ago, leaving the board in 2015 after repeated clashes over strategy. He has publicly criticized Lululemon before — from quality missteps to diversity initiatives — and he still holds a meaningful stake (around 4.3% per market data), enough to make nominations credible but not unilateral.
The road ahead
Proxy fights are part poker, part persuasion. Lululemon’s current directors will weigh the nominations and prepare for a likely campaign to win shareholder votes. That means both sides will pitch narratives: Wilson’s camp emphasizing product and creative renewal, the incumbent board stressing continuity, stability and the search for a vetted CEO.
Elliott’s presence complicates the picture. An activist with deep pockets and a seat at the table, it is also seeking influence over leadership — including a candidate for CEO — and could either align with or oppose Wilson’s slate depending on what serves investor returns.
For customers and employees, the immediate effects will be subtle: product lines will continue to ship, stores will remain open and interim leaders will run the day‑to‑day. But boards decide long arcs: who gets hired as CEO, how capital is allocated, how aggressively the company reinvents its collections and marketing.
The stakes go beyond one apparel company. Lululemon’s trajectory matters to investors watching a retail sector where brands live and die by relevance. If Wilson’s nominees help the company reclaim its design DNA and status with affluent shoppers, Lululemon could rebound. If board turmoil drags on, rivals and changing consumer tastes may make recovery harder.
Either way, a quiet Vancouver yoga studio from 1998 is again at the center of a high‑stakes debate about how brands evolve — and who gets to steer them.