% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Lululemon Athletica Inc. Message Board

  • taexpert928 taexpert928 Oct 28, 2011 1:03 PM Flag

    LULU's CFO was CFO of another co on brink of BK

    Beside Itrawest that Currie was its CFO and went BK , Currie was also CFO of BCE.

    BCE was another company that was on brink of BK and was sold prior to BK. Please see links

    So our LULU 's CFO has history of BK all over its resume and now is CFO of LULU

    John E. Currie has served as our Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer since January 2007. Prior to joining lululemon, he worked for Intrawest Corporation, a provider of destination resorts and leisure travel, from 1996 to 2006, including as CFO from 2004 to 2006, and Senior Vice President, Financing & Taxation, from 1997 to 2004. Prior to joining Intrawest, he held senior financial positions within the BCE Group, a telecommunications service provider, and was a specialist in international taxation with a major accounting firm. Mr. Currie is a member of the board of directors of Hathor Exploration Limited. He is a chartered accountant, and received his Bachelor of Commerce degree from the University of British Columbia.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Well he has done very at lulu. Just look at the chart.

    • LULU heading to same spot at CWTR.

    • The scam will end like PAY.

    • I think Lulu is over priced as well, but don't go saying that BCE (Bell Canada) a true multi-billion dollar company with a 4.5% dividend was on the brink of Bankruptcy - never been further from the truth. BCE sold off Nortel which went bankrupt, but it hasn't before and will not in the future have these kind of troubles unless Canada goes down the tube. The story you refer to is the teachers pension taking a run at taking BCE private. Teacher union backed out.

      Good luck....

    • we need that experience.

    • Court should save BCE deal

      National Post ·

      It would be a spectacular long-term Canadian shareholder disaster, and possibly a corporate governance disaster, if the BCE takeover were to crash over the short-term interests of a relatively small group of bondholders. The bondholders themselves like to play down their demands. Easy to fix, they say. Could have been done for peanuts. All they want, according to one lawyer representing their interests, is to shave a little off the takeover price paid to shareholders and move it over to the bondholders. "If you take one or two dollars away from [the $42.75 per share price] and give that to bondholders, shareholders are still getting a very good deal."

      Simple enough. If this legal wrangle were just a matter of a dollar here and a dollar there, the BCE takeover would not now be heading to the Supreme Court. There are more than a few dollars at stake. Important principles, including the primacy of shareholders, are at the heart of the legal battle over the $52-billion equity-plus-debt BCE takeover -- the largest buyout in history.

      The role of the Supreme Court, if it accepts the appeal, would be to uphold shareholder rights and reverse Wednesday's Quebec Court of Appeal decision. That decision against BCE appears to significantly expand the subversive idea -- long a shadow over Canadian corporate law -- that shareholders are just another group of interested parties in a long list of "stakeholders."

      As the appeal court put it, the BCE board of directors, and a special independent committee of the board, made a "mistake" in deciding not to make special arrangements with the owners of about $5-billion in Bell Canada long-term debt, the debenture holders. "In Canada, the directors of a corporation have a more extensive duty" than to maximize value to shareholders. This more extensive duty means the board "must have regard, among other things, to the reasonable expectations of the debenture holders, and those may be more extensive than merely respecting their contractual legal rights."

      What's the point of a contract if one side is automatically forced to go beyond it? The appeal court's main support for its argument is a 2004 Supreme Court decision known as the Peoples Department Stores case. The Quebec judges quote from the Peoples decision to back up their conclusion that BCE's board made a legal error. "The Supreme Court of Canada in Peoples stated at paragraph 47 that 'In resolving competing interests, it is incumbent upon the directors to act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the corporation ... and not to favour the interests of one group of stakeholders.' "

      • 1 Reply to taexpert928
      • Beside Itrawest that Currie (LULU's CFO) was its CFO and went BK , Currie was also CFO of BCE. BCE was another company that was on brink of BK and was sold prior to BK. What is wrong with this CFO that so many companies he worked for them filed BK?

        Please see links

        So our LULU 's CFO has history of BK all over its resume and now is CFO of LULU

57.68+0.80(+1.41%)Feb 10 3:59 PMEST