Sovereign No More? Recent Developments in FSIA Litigation — Jurisdiction, Enforcement, and the Evolving Exceptions

Gene M. Burd, Partner and Co-Chair, International Disputes | Pierson Ferdinand LLP

Gene M. Burd represents sovereign states, state-owned enterprises, multinational corporations, and high-net-worth individuals in disputes where sovereign immunity, award enforcement, and collection against sovereign assets decide the outcome. A Founding Partner of Pierson Ferdinand LLP and Co-Chair of its International Disputes practice, he concentrates on international commercial and investment treaty arbitration, arbitration-related litigation in U.S. courts, and sovereign enforcement, and advises on sovereign immunity under the FSIA, award enforcement, Section 1782 discovery, and international sanctions and regulatory compliance. His matters routinely involve hundreds of millions, and sometimes billions, of dollars in dispute.

• Education & Credentials

He earned his JD at Rutgers Law School and completed International Legal Studies at McGeorge School of Law in Salzburg, Austria. He also holds an MSCE from Purdue University and a BS from Georgian Technical University in Tbilisi, Republic of Georgia. He is admitted to practice in the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, and before the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the Eleventh Circuit, the U.S. District Courts for the District of Columbia, the District of New Jersey, and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. He is fluent in English and Russian and has a working knowledge of Ukrainian.

• Recognition & Leadership

He co-chairs the firm’s International Disputes practice, which Legal 500 ranks in International Arbitration. He serves on Law360’s 2026 Editorial Advisory Board for International Arbitration and as AI Officer of the IBA Law Practice Division’s Asset Recovery Committee. He previously taught International Litigation in U.S. Courts as an adjunct professor at Rutgers Law School.

• Professional Involvement

He sits as an arbitrator on the panels of 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 presented on the enforcement of arbitral awards against foreign states and state-owned companies at the ABA Section of International Law’s 2020 Virtual Meeting, on the attachment of sovereign assets in the United States at the RAA/ABA XI CIS Dispute Resolution Conference in Moscow in 2019, and on the enforcement of international arbitration awards and collection of damages at the first World Arbitration Update. His publications include “Enforcing Intra-EU Investment Arbitration Awards in the U.S.: Jurisdiction Affirmed, But Final Decision Deferred to District Courts” (Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 2024), “Between the Rock and Hard Place: Will the U.S. Court Follow the EU or International Arbitration Tribunals?” (Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 2024), and “Light At The End Of Tunnel: Enforcing Arbitral Awards Against Sovereigns” (Mealey’s International Arbitration Report, 2017).

• Experience

His sovereign enforcement work runs on both sides of the caption. He defended the Republic of Iraq against a $105+ million sovereign enforcement action in Archirodon (Overseas) Co. Ltd. v. Republic of Iraq, which raised a novel jurisdictional question regarding a sovereign’s liability for a commercial award to which it was not a party; the matter settled in October 2025. For an award creditor, he secured recognition of an international investment arbitration award against a foreign state in U.S. District Court over objections to jurisdiction and immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment following two appeals by the foreign state. He also obtained a commercial arbitration award under the UNCITRAL Rules for a Salvadoran company against a Florida-based distributor and succeeded in the action to recognize it in the District Court and the Court of Appeals, and he secured recognition in Russia of a $28 million international arbitration award for a U.S. company. His wider practice covers international arbitration under the ICC, ICSID, LCIA, SCC, AAA/ICDR, and UNCITRAL rules in the energy, infrastructure, life sciences, manufacturing, financial services, and technology industries; Section 1782 discovery in aid of proceedings in Australia, Russia, Canada, Finland, and the Netherlands; and international litigation in U.S. courts, including dismissals on personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens grounds. He serves as lead counsel for a New York real estate investor in a Stockholm arbitration under the SCC Rules against a major Russian oil refinery and has sat as arbitrator in FIDIC construction cases arising from Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. He previously practiced at FisherBroyles, LLP and Arnall Golden Gregory LLP.

SESSION 1 – Getting Into Court: Personal Jurisdiction, Service, and the Narrowing Exceptions After CC/Devas and Simon | Gene M. Burd | 2:30pm – 3:30pm

This session addresses the threshold questions that decide whether a claim against a foreign sovereign survives at all. It begins with CC/Devas v. Antrix, examining what the Court decided, what it deliberately left open on remand, and how the ruling reshapes forum selection for plaintiffs who can now bring award confirmation and other actions in federal court without proving the sovereign’s contacts with the forum. The session then turns to the exceptions themselves: the expropriation exception as narrowed by Helmerich, Philipp, and Simon and the tracing burden claimants now carry; and the commercial activity exception under 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2), whose nexus requirements shape both the jurisdictional analysis and the later question of which assets can be reached. It closes with the practical mechanics of service under 28 U.S.C. § 1608 and the Hague Service Convention, where a technical misstep can undo an otherwise sound jurisdictional theory.

BREAK | 3:30pm – 3:40pm

SESSION 2 – Getting Paid: Confirming Arbitral Awards and Executing Against Sovereign Assets | Gene M. Burd | 3:40pm – 4:40pm

Winning against a sovereign is often the easier half of the case; collecting is where most matters are decided. This session covers the path from award to recovery, beginning with the arbitration exception under 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6), the New York and ICSID Conventions, and the questions U.S. courts now face when sovereigns resist enforcement of intra-EU investment awards on the ground that no valid arbitration agreement exists. It then moves to attachment and execution under §§ 1609–1611, using Attestor Master Value Fund v. Argentina to explain when property in the United States is “used for a commercial activity” and how courts locate intangible property for attachment purposes. The session concludes with the hardest current questions: central bank and sanctioned assets, the interplay between OFAC blocking and FSIA immunity, and the strategic sequencing of enforcement actions across jurisdictions.