The co-founder of an $8 billion asset management firm has filed a federal lawsuit alleging he was fired for not complying with a strict return-to-office policy that he helped implement. William Nieporte, 57, claims his partners at Bramshill Investments, Art DeGaetano and Stephen Selver, used the policy as an excuse to force him out and take his 12 percent ownership stake in the company.
Nieporte and DeGaetano founded Bramshill Investments in 2012. Selver joined as CEO two years later, and the ownership structure solidified with DeGaetano holding 48 percent, Selver 40 percent, and Nieporte 12 percent. Nieporte served as chief operating officer and chief compliance officer.
Escalating Tensions and a Divorce Clause
Tensions reportedly began to rise after the company's success grew during the pandemic, with assets under management increasing from approximately $3 billion to over $4.5 billion by 2022. In 2021, DeGaetano and Selver attempted to invoke a "Divorce Clause" in the company's operating agreement, suggesting Nieporte's ongoing divorce proceedings could trigger a clause that would allow the other owners to strip him of his managerial rights, voting rights, and compel a buyout of his interest. Nieporte's legal team argued that the commencement of divorce proceedings alone did not trigger the clause.
Despite Nieporte's arguments, he received a letter in April 2021 stating his membership interests were converted to non-voting status and his board membership was suspended, with his interests subject to sale to the company.
Return-to-Office Mandate and Lawsuit
The dispute intensified in 2022 when the three co-owners agreed to implement a policy requiring employees to return to one of Bramshill's three U.S. offices five days a week, with a deadline of July 5 for compliance. The memo, signed by all three, stated that employees who did not abide by the mandate would be offered severance packages.
Nieporte, however, maintained that the mandate did not apply to him as a co-owner, not an "at-will" employee. According to the lawsuit, discussions surrounding the policy's adoption did not indicate it would apply to him. His partners allegedly began pressing him to relocate from the San Francisco Bay Area to Southern California to work at the Newport Beach office.
After the compliance deadline passed, DeGaetano reportedly warned Nieporte that he had 30 days to avoid further action, citing that other employees commuted significant distances. Nieporte claims the notice was not delivered through valid channels.
He approached DeGaetano later that month to discuss a buyout. Following this meeting, DeGaetano allegedly stated in an email that "all pending actions on either side will be put on hold." However, shortly after this discussion, Nieporte was terminated. The termination letter, obtained by The Wall Street Journal, cited Nieporte's alleged "willful and deliberate failure to report to 'in-person work.'"
Nieporte's lawsuit also names ADP Total Source, the human resources company Bramshill partnered with, alleging it facilitated his termination. The suit claims ADP knew or should have known Nieporte, as a self-employed individual whose rights derived from operating agreements, could not be terminated at-will. Nieporte contends that ADP representatives advised Selver and DeGaetano on firing him and provided the official termination notice to legitimize the action.
Claims and Counterclaims
Nieporte is seeking at least $30 million in lost earnings, profits, and the value of his 12 percent stake. He also seeks to be reinstated as the company's chief compliance officer.
An ADP spokeswoman told The Wall Street Journal that the company would defend itself and stated that termination letters are generated automatically once client decisions are entered into their software.
A representative for Bramshill Investments called Nieporte's claims fabricated and expressed confidence that the legal process would show no wrongdoing by the company or its co-owners. The representative asserted that Nieporte was terminated for dereliction of duty and is not entitled to the compensation he seeks. Nieporte's attorney countered that the alleged neglect of duty—failing to return to the office—does not constitute a valid reason for termination under the company's operating agreement.