Dr. Jan Frohloff LL.M.
Partner
Languages
German, EnglishDr Jan Frohloff is a partner at SRP. He represents clients before international arbitration tribunals and in German courts. The clients that Dr Frohloff advises and represents in these disputes are from the space industry, aviation industry, telecommunications industry and from the private equity sector.
Dr Frohloff regularly publishes on international arbitration and space disputes and is regularly invited to talks, interviews, guest lectures and panel discussions on these topics. He is a member of the board of the Space Arbitration Association and the editor-in-chief of its blog.
Education and career
Dr Frohloff is a graduate from Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz School of Law. As part of his doctorate (equivalent to PhD/SJD) he completed research stays at New York University School of Law and the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law in Hamburg. He completed his Master of Laws at King’s College London and used his legal traineeship to further expand his focus on international arbitration at a major international law firm in Frankfurt/Main and at the San Francisco office of this law firm. After two stints as associate in major international law firms, he joined SRP in 2022.
Publications (Selection)
- “Per arbitrum ad astra“. Journal of International Arbitration, Volume 37, Issue 6, 2020, 721-730.
- “The Applicable Law to Collisions in Outer Space“. Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht (RabelsZ), Volume 84, Issue 3, 2020, 593-614.
- “Collisions of Artificial Satellites: The Liability of States and Private Entities“. Air and Space Law, Volume 45, Issue 3, 2020, 341-358.
- “Arbitration in Space Disputes“. Arbitration International, Volume 35, Issue 3, September 2019, 309-329. Arbitration International’s number one most read article for two months straight. Selected by Oxford University Press for the article collection “The Promise of International Law“.
- “The Advance on Costs in Investment Arbitration” (with Dr Markus Altenkirch). ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, Volume 33, Issue 3, Fall 2018, 723-735.
- “Breach of Arbitration Agreements”. Mohr Siebeck, Publications on Procedural Law, Vol. 141, Tübingen 2017.
- “Damages Claims after Interim Measures in Arbitration Proceedings” (together with Prof. Dr. Jörg Risse). Zeitschrift für Schiedsverfahrensrecht (SchiedsVZ) 2011, 239-248.
Talks / Interviews / Panel Discussions (Selection)
- “Orbiting Human Built Object – Managing and Resolving Satellite Disputes” (co-authored with Laura Yvonne Zielinski). Global Arbitration Review: The Guide to Aviation and Space Disputes. Law Business Research, 1st Edition 2024.
- “A Fire Debate: Are Commercial Courts the Better Choice in Emergency Cases?”. DIS40 Autumn Conference, 15 September 2023. Panelist.
- “Space Law and Arbitration“. World Arbitration Update, 29 September 2022. Panelist.
- “Episode 09: Arbitration in Space“. #future – The Arbitration Podcast, 18 May 2022. Interview guest.
- “Space Arbitration – Solving Disputes Over Satellites and More. Paris Arbitration Week, 29 March 2022. Speaker and panel
- “Space Disputes: Phantom Menace or Return of Justice? – 33 Minutes with Dr Jan Frohloff“. Space Café WebTalk, 1 February 2022. Interview guest.
- “Does Outer Space Need Arbitration?“. Online panel discussion of the Space Arbitration Association, 13 January 2022. Speaker and panel
Experience
Corporate disputes
US telecommunications company in corporate disputes (contentious shareholders' meetings, interim injunction proceedings, arbitration proceedings, cancellation proceedings), amount in dispute > 200 million €
SRP represents a US telecommunications company in (cross-border) disputes from of a joint venture to build a satellite network. In particular
- contentious shareholders’ meetings,
- numerous preliminary injunction proceedings,
- more than a dozen DIS and ICC arbitrations, and
- setting-aside proceedings against arbitral awards.
Issues in these proceedings are inter alia
- Dismissal of managing directors for cause,
- Redemption of shares for cause,
- Determination of the shareholder compensation payment,
- Claims for damages against managing directors and shareholders,
- Dissolution of the company; and
- Frequency usage rights.
Commercial disputes
Ongoing advice to the German subsidiary of a US aerospace company.
Defended a British aerospace supplier against design change requests of a German aerospace supplier in relation to the landing gear of a commercial aircraft
Defended a German aerospace supplier against claims for damages by a supplier before a German regional court, amount in dispute > 13 million €
Post-M&A disputes
Defended a German telecommunications company against earn-out claims before a German regional court, amount in dispute > 10 million €
Dr Frohloff was part of a team that defended a German telecommunications company before a German regional court against earn-out claims by the sellers of the target company. The case was special in that the managing director of the target company was also one of its sellers and during the earn-out period he had started building a competitor to the target company, whilst attributing the dwindling customer base of the target to the buyers.
Defended a German medical technology company against a claim for indemnification in DIS arbitration proceedings seated in Berlin, amount in dispute > 2 million €
Dr Frohloff was part of a team that defended a German medical technology company in a DIS arbitration seated in Berlin against a claim for indemnification by the buyer of the target company. The unique characteristic of the dispute was that the seller complied with the indemnification claim, but the buyer still demanded payment in cash.
Defended a German pharmaceutical company against earn-out claims in an ICC arbitration seated in New York, amount in dispute > 55 million USD
Dr Frohloff was part of a team that defended a German pharmaceutical company in a New York-seated ICC arbitration against earn-out claims in the aftermath of a transaction. The pivotal question in this case was if the buyer had pursued “commercially reasonable efforts” to achieve certain milestones after acquiring the target company.