The Zipper Theorem: How We Solved a $100 Million Crisis with Logic, Teamwork—and a Bit of Humor

In 2013, I found myself resolving a crisis so severe that it threatened to bring down one of the largest programs in the U.S. apparel industry. The solution? What I now call The Zipper Theorem:“A zipper need not be stronger than the fabric it is attached to.”

Let me explain.

I had just completed a four-year stint as CEO of Ed Hardy when my brother Gerard asked me to take the reins at Sunrise Brands (formerly Tarrant Apparel Group). Working with family can be complicated, but I adore Gerard—and I might be the only person he actually listens to. I felt I could make a difference. So I said yes.

Shaping the Next Chapter

My first move as CEO was to understand the past before shaping the future. I built a comprehensive spreadsheet—a 10-year historical analysis broken down quarterly by division. It helped frame every future decision against the company’s real journey.

Then I created what became one of our most powerful tools: a two-sided, daily tabloid-size management dashboard. It was more than a report—it was a complete operating system. It included:

• Financials by division (historical, YTD, projections)

• Cash flow tracking

• Daily sales by store and comparative analysis

• Inventory fluctuations

• Borrowing base availability

• And much more—across over 10 divisions

Anyone with this sheet in hand had a full view of the business at all times.

I also formed a management committee—a daily think tank of operational brilliance:

• Don Waldman, our seasoned and hands-on COO

• Peter Akaragian, our laser-focused CFO

• Chris Trunnell, our deep-thinking General Counsel

We met every morning for 30–45 minutes. The four of us together? Analytically lethal.

• Don had seen it all and brought real-world judgment.

• Peter had the rare ability to distill the most complex issues into basic principles.

• Chris could deconstruct any legal or structural challenge to its core and build a new path forward—always focused, always present.

This was the team in place when our “zipper crisis” hit.

The Crisis

We had over two million garments on the floor at the largest U.S. retailer, and nearly a million more en route. The retailer claimed that the zippers didn’t meet the required strength specification: 120 lbs of resistance.

Our zippers were testing at 100 lbs. Cue the alarms.

If the retailer rejected the product, the financial impact would be catastrophic. But instead of panicking, we asked the right question: Why 120 lbs? Where did that number even come from?

The answer was predictably absurd: someone had copied Levi’s denim zipper spec. That’s right—120 lbs was the standard for the most rugged, riveted denim ever made (think: two donkeys pulling in opposite directions). No one had stopped to ask if that made sense for lightweight spring fabrics.

It didn’t.

Building the Case

Because this retailer operated by the book, every single shipment—every colorway—had been tested by a certified lab. And we had access to all the data. Hundreds of reports, each showing the test results for both zippers and the fabrics they were attached to.

We compiled it all into a single database. And the findings were clear:

In every single case, the zipper was stronger than the fabric.

Our lucky break was that these garments were made for spring/summer—lightweight fabrics with a resistance rating of 60–70 lbs. Our zippers, at 100 lbs, were far more than sufficient.

In other words: the fabric would fail before the zipper ever would.

The Theorem Is Born

Armed with our findings, I made a tongue-in-cheek declaration:“I am now a certified zipper expert.”

And I issued the Zipper Theorem:“A zipper need not be stronger than the fabric it is attached to.”

We presented our case to the retailer with clarity, data, and logic. And they agreed.

Crisis averted.

The Real Story

The credit belongs to the team. While I’ll take credit for coining the theorem, I’m sure it was born in one of our morning think-tank sessions. So I’d like to share this (entirely self-awarded) honor with Don, Peter, and Chris—a trio of brilliant minds who rose to every occasion.

This was one of those defining leadership moments. Not because we avoided disaster—but because we did it through calm analysis, collaboration, and the belief that no problem is too big when you have the right people in the room.

We didn’t just save millions of dollars. We restored trust, preserved relationships, and turned chaos into clarity.

And we got a pretty good theorem out of it too.