Asymmetric Agreement

49 The clause was asymmetrical in so far as the obligations of the parties were different (although it did not apply in favour of a given party) and was not exclusive, since it designated two separate courts. 19 See Lord Mance in AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP against Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower JSC [2013] [2013] UKSC 35; [2013] 2 Lloyd`s Rep 201 refers to the «negative promise» in an exclusive jurisdiction agreement. The proceedings arose from a dispute between Etihad Airways PJSC (Etihad) and Air Berlin`s receiver (the receiver). After years of financial difficulties, Air Berlin started working in 2016 with Etihad (as a partner) on a set of restructurings. In April 2017, Etihad agreed to provide €350 million to Air Berlin under a facility agreement that contained an asymmetric jurisdiction clause.