-
Signature
-
/s/ Christopher Schaub, as attorney-in-fact for Jennifer Vecchio
-
Issuer symbol
-
BURL
-
Transactions as of
-
02 Jun 2025
-
Transactions value $
-
-$112,685
-
Form type
-
4
-
Filing time
-
04 Jun 2025, 16:15:05 UTC
Reporting Owners (1)
| Name |
Relationship |
Address |
Signature |
Signature date |
CIK |
| Vecchio Jennifer |
Group President and CMO |
2006 ROUTE 130 NORTH, BURLINGTON |
/s/ Christopher Schaub, as attorney-in-fact for Jennifer Vecchio |
04 Jun 2025 |
0001641994 |
Transactions Table
| Type |
Sym |
Class |
Transaction |
Value $ |
Shares |
Change % |
* Price $ |
Shares After |
Date |
Ownership |
Footnotes |
| transaction |
BURL |
Common Stock |
Sale |
-$9,020 |
-40 |
-0.06% |
$225.51 |
66,514 |
02 Jun 2025 |
Direct |
F1 |
| transaction |
BURL |
Common Stock |
Sale |
-$21,334 |
-94 |
-0.14% |
$226.96 |
66,420 |
02 Jun 2025 |
Direct |
F1, F2 |
| transaction |
BURL |
Common Stock |
Sale |
-$60,868 |
-266 |
-0.4% |
$228.83 |
66,154 |
02 Jun 2025 |
Direct |
F1, F3 |
| transaction |
BURL |
Common Stock |
Sale |
-$10,329 |
-45 |
-0.07% |
$229.55 |
66,109 |
02 Jun 2025 |
Direct |
F1 |
| transaction |
BURL |
Common Stock |
Sale |
-$11,132 |
-48 |
-0.07% |
$231.92 |
66,061 |
02 Jun 2025 |
Direct |
F1, F4 |
| holding |
BURL |
Common Stock |
|
|
|
|
|
186 |
02 Jun 2025 |
By reporting person as UTMA custodian for son |
|
| holding |
BURL |
Common Stock |
|
|
|
|
|
186 |
02 Jun 2025 |
By reporting person as UTMA custodian for daughter |
|
* An asterisk sign (*) next to the price indicates that the price is likely invalid.
Buy Plan / Sale Plan: These are also open market purchases/sales of shares, but in this case the transaction is part of a trading plan. Rule 10b5-1 allows insiders to setup a trading plan to buy/sell stocks over a certain period of time. Since the purchases/sales are predetermined, this protects the insiders from violating insider trading law.
Transaction was made pursuant to a contract, instruction or written plan for the purchase or sale of equity securities of the issuer that is intended to satisfy the affirmative defense conditions of Rule 10b5-1(c).
Explanation of Responses: