Full Breakdown
Termination Over Return-to-Office Policy at Bramshill Investments
7/5/2026, 6:11:09 AM
Background: Return-to-Office Mandate After COVID-19
In 2022, Bramshill Investments—an $8 billion California-based asset-management firm—sent an email requiring all staff to work on-site at one of its three offices five days a week by July. The directive reflected a broader corporate shift toward reinstating in-person work after the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic.
Key Figures
- William Nieporte – Co-founder and chief compliance officer for roughly a decade; held a 12 % equity stake.
- Stephen Selver – Co-founder and chief executive officer.
- Art DeGaetano – Co-founder, chief investment officer, and author of the termination notice.
- Matthew Press – Attorney representing Nieporte in the 2026 lawsuit.
Chronology of the Dispute
- 2017 – Nieporte moves to San Ramon, California, with co-founders’ approval.
- Early 2022 – Email orders all employees to return to office by July.
- July 2022 – Deadline passes; Nieporte continues remote work from San Ramon.
- July 2022 – DeGaetano issues a termination letter stating Nieporte “willfully and deliberately failed to report to ‘in-person’ work.”
- May 2026 – Nieporte files a lawsuit alleging wrongful termination and seeking at least $30 million in damages, including loss of earnings and the value of his 12 % stake.
- July 2026 – Bramshill spokesperson tells the Wall Street Journal that Nieporte is “fabricating accusations.”
Financial Stakes and Legal Claims
The suit seeks a minimum of $30 million, covering alleged lost earnings, profits, and the valuation of Nieporte’s 12 % ownership. The filing argues that the return-to-office policy “presumably did not apply to ownership,” implying selective enforcement.
Official Statements from Bramshill and Legal Counsel
Bramshill’s spokesperson said Nieporte is “fabricating accusations” and that the legal process will show the co-owners acted properly. Nieporte’s attorney, Matthew Press, contended the policy “was not a valid reason for termination and only applied to employees,” and that the notice was procedurally defective.
Criticism of the Termination Rationale
The lawsuit claims the policy was used as a pretext to remove Nieporte and acquire his equity stake. It emphasizes that owners were not subject to the same attendance requirements, suggesting the mandate was applied inconsistently.
Conflicting Reports on Notice Delivery
Nieporte asserts the termination notice was invalid because it was not delivered by hand, fax, or mail, while the termination letter—reviewed by the Wall Street Journal—was accepted by Bramshill as sufficient. The dispute over proper delivery remains unresolved.
Verbatim Quotes
- “We have both junior and senior employees commuting over one hour each way to work, and yet you feel this policy doesn’t apply to you.” — Art DeGaetano, Chief Investment Officer, Bramshill Investments
- “willfully and deliberately failed to report to ‘in-person’ work.” — Termination Letter, Bramshill Investments
- “A spokesperson for Bramshill told the Wall Street Journal that Nieporte was fabricating accusations and that the legal process would show the other co-owners did not do anything wrong.” — Bramshill Spokesperson
- “Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters Nieporte’s attorney, Matthew Press, said the policy was not a valid reason for termination and only applied to employees.” — Matthew Press, Attorney for Nieporte
- “appropriately ignored the email,” — Nieporte’s lawsuit (claim)
Potential Next Steps
The case proceeds through litigation. Bramshill maintains confidence in a favorable outcome, while Nieporte’s counsel expects the court to evaluate the enforceability of a return-to-office policy for equity partners and the adequacy of the termination notice.
