
William Nieporte, co-founder of $8 billion Bramshill Investments, was fired after violating a five-day return-to-office policy he helped create. His $30 million lawsuit claims the rule was selectively enforced.
William Nieporte, co-founder of $8 billion Bramshill Investments, was fired after skirting a five-day return-to-office policy he helped implement. He is now suing the California-based asset manager for at least $30 million, alleging the mandate was used to force him out.
The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, claims Nieporte's move from the firm's Burbank headquarters to Northern California had been approved by senior management. Despite that approval, the firm cited his failure to comply with the five-day in-office requirement as grounds for termination last year.
Bramshill Investments, which manages roughly $8 billion in fixed-income and alternative assets, introduced the policy in 2023 as the industry pushed for a full return to pre-pandemic working norms. Nieporte argues the rule was selectively enforced. The lawsuit says other executives were allowed to work remotely or come in fewer days without facing discipline.
Nieporte co-founded Bramshill in 2013 and served as its chief investment officer until his dismissal. His compensation package, including carried interest and equity, exceeded $30 million over the remaining term of his contract, the suit says. He is seeking damages for breach of contract, wrongful termination, and unpaid earnings.
The case highlights the legal friction return-to-office policies can create, especially when founders and senior staff challenge enforcement. In asset management, where face-to-face meetings with clients and portfolio teams are common, firms have been among the strictest in requiring in-person attendance.
Bramshill has not filed a formal response. The company declined to comment on pending litigation. A preliminary hearing is set for June.
Nieporte's lawyer said in a statement that the policy was „a pretext to oust a founder who disagreed with the firm's strategic direction.“ The attorney declined to elaborate on the disagreements.
The suit includes emails and internal memos that, according to Nieporte, show the approval for his relocation and subsequent demands for him to return to Burbank. The firm has not yet produced its own records in discovery.
The case is being watched by employment lawyers because it tests how far companies can push mandatory office attendance when an employee has written approval to work elsewhere. California courts generally require employers to enforce policies consistently or risk liability for selective treatment, legal experts said.
For now, the dispute remains a private employment matter with no public impact on Bramshill's funds or clients. The firm continues to operate without disruption, according to a person familiar with the situation.
The next court date is June 20.
Prepared with AlphaScala research tooling and grounded in primary market data: live prices, fundamentals, SEC filings, hedge-fund holdings, and insider activity. Each story is checked against AlphaScala publishing rules before release. Educational coverage, not personalized advice.