A conservative shareholder activist arrested during Berkshire Hathaway's 2023 annual meeting after mentioning Bill Gates' ties to Jeffrey Epstein is asking a federal appeals court to revive his lawsuit against Warren Buffett and the company.
The National Legal and Policy Center on Wednesday filed its opening brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit on behalf of its chair, Peter Flaherty, and staffer James "Jamie" Tovar.
The appeal challenges an Omaha federal judge's decision to throw out their civil case against Berkshire, Buffett, and security contractors over Flaherty's arrest at the May 6, 2023, gathering in Omaha's CHI Health Center.
The NLPC describes itself as a conservative legal watchdog that "promotes ethics in public life through research, investigation, education and legal action" and frequently uses shareholder activism to pressure large corporations.
A respected conservative organization, the NLPC has a successful track record of having major corporations remove or amend corporate policies based on shareholder proposals.
Flaherty was presenting a formally approved shareholder proposal urging Berkshire to split the roles of chair and CEO, which Buffett has long combined.
As part of those remarks, he criticized Buffett's billions in donations to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and raised what he called the reputational risk of Buffett's close identification with Gates in light of Gates' documented meetings with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Those Gates-Epstein contacts have been reported for years by outlets including The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.
Gates has since called his association with Epstein a "huge mistake" and said he was "foolish" to spend time with him.
According to the NLPC and video from the meeting, Buffett initially allowed Flaherty to continue after an internal Berkshire executive told him to "stay on topic," reminding him of a three-minute limit.
Seconds later, as Flaherty referenced Gates and Epstein, his microphone was cut. Security personnel approached, and an Omaha police officer arrested him for criminal trespass as he attempted to finish his remarks.
Flaherty was removed from the arena, taken to a local jail, booked, and then released; prosecutors later dropped the trespass charge.
Tovar, who accompanied him to the microphone, alleges security grabbed his arm and blocked him from following Flaherty out of the hall, forming the basis for his own false imprisonment and battery claims.
In May 2024, the NLPC, Flaherty, and Tovar sued Berkshire, Buffett, and two security contractors, claiming assault, battery, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and promissory estoppel.
U.S. District Judge Brian Buescher dismissed all claims against Berkshire and Buffett in an Oct. 29, 2024, memorandum.
The court accepted Berkshire's argument that, under an Omaha "refusal to leave" ordinance, Flaherty became a trespasser once he declined to immediately exit when told, giving the company and its agents a legal privilege to have him removed.
That conclusion in turn defeated his claims for assault, battery, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution, the court held.
The judge also rejected a promissory-estoppel theory based on Berkshire's invitation to present the proposal, noting that federal proxy rules already require a shareholder-proponent or representative to appear in person to speak on a proposal.
Claims against one named security guard were later dismissed as well, and the case was closed in August 2025, setting up the current appeal.
In its new brief, the NLPC called the episode an "unprecedented" act of private censorship at a public company's annual meeting and argues the district court badly misread Omaha's trespass ordinances.
The group contends Flaherty was a "special invitee" who had both a statutory right and an explicit corporate invitation to attend, present, and vote on his proposal under SEC Rule 14a-8 and Delaware corporate law, and therefore could not lawfully be treated as a trespasser for saying something management disliked.
The filing also insists Berkshire and Buffett should be held liable for directing security and police to arrest Flaherty mid-presentation, rather than simply asking him to sit down or enforcing the time limit.
NLPC frames the case as a test of whether large corporations may "silence and arrest" duly credentialed shareholders over the viewpoint of their speech without facing civil consequences.
Berkshire and Buffett have not yet filed their responses in the 8th Circuit appeal.
In prior court papers, they have denied wrongdoing and argued they acted within their rights to maintain order at a private meeting after Flaherty allegedly refused directions from company representatives.
A ruling from the St. Louis-based appeals court could shape how far companies can go in policing dissent at shareholder meetings.
Activist investors are increasingly using corporate proxy season as a battleground over environmental, social, and governance, a methodology used by investors and companies to measure sustainability and ethical impact; politics; and executive power.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.