Gene M. Burd

Partner | Litigation
Co-Chair, International Disputes

About

Gene M. Burd is a partner at Pierson Ferdinand and a leading international disputes lawyer. He has extensive experience in handling complex and high-stakes disputes involving foreign parties, sovereigns, and state-owned entities. He advises and represents clients across various sectors, such as energy, biotechnology, manufacturing, real estate, and finance, in arbitrations under the rules of major international institutions and in litigation before U.S. courts.

  • He also assists clients with matters related to foreign investment, international trade, and U.S. financial sanctions. Gene represented clients before the Federal Maritime Commission in cases involving unjust and unreasonable practices under the Shipping Act of 1984 and the Ocean Shipping Reform Act. Additionally, he assists clients with FOIA requests and associated FOIA litigations.

    Gene has a deep understanding of the legal and practical issues that arise in cross-border disputes, such as personal jurisdiction, comity, enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards, stays of litigation based on arbitration agreements, forum non conveniens, and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. He is also well-versed in the principles and practices of international arbitration, such as choice of law, evidence, confidentiality, interim measures, and costs.

    Gene is recognized as a leading practitioner in international arbitration. He taught a course in international litigation in US courts as adjunct professor at Rutgers Law School. He is also an active member of the international arbitration community and regularly speaks and writes on topics related to his practice area. 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, Camden, NJ. JD 1997

  • McGeorge School of Law, Salzburg, Austria, International Legal Studies, 1996

  • Purdue University, MSCE, 1991

  • Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Republic of Georgia, BS, 1980

Experience

  • FisherBroyles, LLP

  • Arnall Golden Gregory LLP

Notable Cases

Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards

  • 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 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.

  • 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 in the Vienna International Arbitral Centre and the Court of Arbitration of the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce.

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

  • 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.