Gene M. Burd
Partner | Litigation
Co-Chair, International Disputes
gene.burd@pierferd.com
+1.202.803.5407 office
Washington, D.C.
PDF – vCard
About
Gene M. Burd is a Founding Partner of Pierson Ferdinand and Co-Chair of the firm’s International Disputes practice, which has been ranked by Legal 500 in International Arbitration. His practice focuses on international commercial and investment treaty arbitration, arbitration-related litigation in U.S. courts, and sovereign enforcement. He represents sovereign states, state-owned enterprises, multinational corporations, and high-net-worth individuals in high-stakes disputes around the world. His matters routinely involve hundreds of millions—and sometimes billions—of dollars in dispute.
-
Gene has extensive experience in both commercial and investor-state arbitration under all major arbitral rules, including ICC, ICSID, LCIA, SCC, AAA/ICDR, and UNCITRAL. He regularly advises clients on the full lifecycle of international disputes, from pre-arbitration strategy and tribunal proceedings through post-award enforcement and cross-border asset recovery. His practice spans a broad range of industries, including energy, infrastructure, life sciences, manufacturing, financial services, and technology.
Gene has handled disputes spanning dozens of countries across multiple continents, regularly appearing before U.S. federal courts, international arbitral tribunals, and foreign fora. He has deep expertise in the legal and practical issues that arise in cross-border disputes, including sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, enforcement of arbitral awards, Section 1782 discovery in aid of foreign proceedings, and arbitration-related litigation. He also advises clients on matters related to international sanctions and regulatory compliance.
In addition to his counsel work, Gene sits as arbitrator on the panels of three leading international arbitral institutions: the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), the Vienna International Arbitral Centre (VIAC), and the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ICAC). He has served as both presiding arbitrator and party-nominated arbitrator in international commercial and construction disputes.
Gene is passionate about thought leadership. He serves on Law360’s 2026 Editorial Advisory Board for International Arbitration and is the AI Officer for the IBA Law Practice Division’s Asset Recovery Committee. He is a sought-after speaker and author on international arbitration and sovereign enforcement, and he previously taught international litigation in U.S. courts as an adjunct professor at Rutgers Law School. He is fluent in English and Russian and has working knowledge of Ukrainian.
Practices
Commercial Litigation
International Disputes
Arbitration and Mediation
Admissions
District of Columbia
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
U.S. Court of Appeals – D.C. Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals – 11th Circuit
U.S. District Court – District of D.C.
U.S. District Court – District of New Jersey
U.S. District Court – Eastern District of Pennsylvania
U.S. Bankruptcy Court – District of New Jersey
Education
Rutgers Law School, JD
McGeorge School of Law, Salzburg, Austria, International Legal Studies
Purdue University, MSCE
Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Republic of Georgia, BS
Experience
FisherBroyles, LLP
Arnall Golden Gregory LLP
Notable Cases
Investor-State Arbitration & Sovereign Enforcement
Defended the Republic of Iraq against a $105+ million sovereign enforcement action (Archirodon (Overseas) Co. Ltd. v. Republic of Iraq), raising a novel jurisdictional question regarding a sovereign’s liability for a commercial award to which it was not party. The matter settled in October 2025.
Secured recognition of an international investment arbitration award against a foreign state in the U.S. District Court over objections to jurisdiction and immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act. Following two appeals by the foreign state, the Court of Appeals affirmed judgment issued by the District Court.
Obtained arbitration award in favor of a Salvadoran company against a Florida-based distributor in commercial arbitration under UNCITRAL Rules. Pursued and succeeded in the action to recognize the award in District Court and the Court of Appeals.
Represented U.S. company owned by a prominent New York in securing recognition in Russia of a $28 million international arbitration award for a U.S. company owned by prominent New York real estate developer.
International Litigation in U.S. Courts
Successfully defended a Ukrainian TV broadcasting company against defamation claim by a New York businessman in a U.S. federal court. Achieved dismissal of the case based on personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens.
Represented a Russian real estate investor in a dispute with its local U.S. partners concerning allegations of fraud and conversion.
Represented Ukrainian businessman in an action brought in the United States alleging illegal taking of real estate assets in Ukraine. Achieved dismissal of the action based on personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens.
Section 1782 Discovery
Represented international financial services company in connection with obtaining evidence from a New York-based brokerage firm for use in Australian court proceedings.
Represented a foreign businessman in connection with request to obtain evidence pursuant to Section 1782 for use in Russian marital property division proceedings.
Representing a major international pharmaceutical corporation in Section 1782 proceedings in connection with a patent validity dispute in Canada.
Represented a foreign private equity fund in connection with Section 1782 proceeding seeking evidence to support its claim of minority shareholder oppression in foreign proceedings in Finland.
Represented a pharmaceutical company seeing evidence to support its claim for breach of a clinical trials contract in proceedings in the Netherlands.
Cross-Border Advice
Represented a Russian oil equipment exporter in connection with breach of contract claims against a U.S. customer.
Advising a U.S. investor in connection with sale of its interest in a major Russian construction conglomerate.
Advised international manufacturer of electronic and optical equipment in connection with its divestment from Russia.
Advised an international industrial group in all aspects of the acquisition of the ferroalloy and steel assets in the United States including acquisition through receivership and bankruptcy proceedings.
White Collar Investigation
Advised a U.S. credit card payment processor in connection with international money laundering investigation initiated by foreign authorities.
Serving as an expert retained by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service on foreign legal issues involving assignment of distressed assets.
International Arbitration
Represented as lead counsel a prominent New York real estate investor in Stockholm arbitration against major Russian oil refinery under the rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce.
Represented Cyprus-based holding companies in a corporate dispute brought in the LCIA arbitration in London over the ownership of electric power distribution assets in Ukraine.
Arbitrator in a series of cases involving allegations of breach of a FIDIC contract for a public construction project arising out of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine under the rules of the Court of Arbitration of the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce.
Appointed as a presiding arbitrator in the dispute between Ukrainian distributor and Latvian pharmaceutical company heard in the Court of Arbitration of the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce with the CISG as applicable law.
Appointed as a party arbitrator in the dispute between a U.S. natural gas equipment supplier and a Ukrainian state-owned company heard in the Court of Arbitration of the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce with the CISG.
Listed as arbitrator on the panels of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), Vienna International Arbitral Centre (VIAC), and the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ICAC). Has served as both presiding arbitrator and party-nominated arbitrator in international commercial and construction disputes, including three FIDIC-based construction arbitrations at ICAC-Ukraine with an aggregate value of approximately EUR 88 million.
Presentations and Teaching Experience
Washington Arbitration Week Recap: the Ukraine Crisis and Post-War Scenarios - Kluwer Arbitration Blog
Rutgers Law School, Adjunct Professor, Course: International Litigation in U.S. Courts.
Ukraine And Ukrainian Nationals and Assets: Options of International Arbitration and Litigation, Funding and Recovery Options for Ukraine, its Nationals and the Protection of Their Assets – World Arbitration Update, 3rd
International Dispute Resolution and the Ukraine-Russia Crisis – World Arbitration Update, 2nd
Enforcement of International Arbitration Awards and Collection of Damages – World Arbitration Update, 1st
Recent Developments in the Investment-State Disputes Settlement – Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Against Foreign States and State-Owned Companies, ABA Section of International Law, 2020 Virtual Meeting.
Attachment of Sovereign Assets in the United States, RAA/ABA XI CIS Dispute Resolution Conference, Moscow 2019.
Obtaining Discovery in the United States for Use in Foreign Proceedings, 5th Edition Fraud, Asset Tracing & Recovery Asia, Hong Kong 2019.
The Future of Life Sciences: The Convergence of Private and Public Law, Copenhagen, Denmark
Doing Business with the BRICS Nations, Washington, D.C. 2018.
From Russia with the Scars (and Profits) to Prove it: How Experience in Countries of the Former Soviet Union Can Apply to Cuba (Business Law); ABA Section of International Law, Miami, FL 2017.
The Impact of Economic Sanctions on International Arbitration, Stockholm, Sweden, 2016.
Russia-Related Litigations in U.S. Courts, Moscow State Institute of International Relations, 2004.
Publications
“Enforcing Intra-EU Investment Arbitration Awards in the U.S.: Jurisdiction Affirmed, But Final Decision Deferred to District Courts”, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, November 27, 2024
“Between the Rock and Hard Place: Will the U.S. Court Follow the EU or International Arbitration Tribunals?”, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, April 25, 2024
Fourth Circuit Weighs In on Whether International Commercial Arbitration Panels Are Tribunals, JD Supra, 2020
The Eleventh Circuit Confirms its Pro-Arbitration Stance Once Again, JD Supra 2020
$4M Arbitration Award Issued to a CBD Oil Supplier Client, Law360 (mention), 2020
Moldova Likely to Pay $58 Million Debt to Platon-associated Energy Company, Case Returns to Paris Appeal Court, Moldova.org (mention), 2019
Confidential Arbitration Award in Dispute Between Phosphagenics and Mylan, JD Supra, 2018
Energy Co. Says $50M Award Row Should Proceed, Law360 (mention), 2018
We Agreed to What? Lessons From a Recent Federal Court Decision on Arbitrability, JD Supra 2018.
Top 5 Reasons for Life Sciences Companies to Use International Arbitration for Intellectual Property Disputes, JD Supra, 2018.
Is There a Burger in the Treasury’s CAATSA Report? JD Supra, 2018.
Light At The End Of Tunnel: Enforcing Arbitral Awards Against Sovereigns, Mealey’s International Arbitration Report, 2017.
Dow Takes its Gene Patents Row with Bayer to the Supreme Court to Avoid the $455 Million Arbitral Award, JD Supra, 2017
C. Court Sends a Harsh Reminder to Yukos Shareholders: Section 1782 Discovery is Discretionary, JD Supra, 2017
Obtaining Evidence for use in Foreign Proceedings, JD Supra, 2017
S. Discovery for Use in International Arbitration: A Catch 22, Young Arbitration Review, 2017.
Industry Pulse for Life Sciences Companies: Resolving Intellectual Property Disputes through International Arbitration, JD Supra, 2017
2nd Circuit Tilts the Scale in Favor of Discovery in Aid of Arbitration, JD Supra, 2017
Russia Responds to Western Sanctions by Banning Imported Foods, JD Supra, 2014.
Sanctions Against Russia – Part 2: What Your Company Should Consider Now, JD Supra, 2014.
Labor Conciliation Proceeding is Not a Tribunal for the Purposes of 28 U.S.C. §1782, JD Supra, 2014.