Сделать summary текста по английскому

Нужно сделать summary (краткий пересказ) на английском данного текста.

Three out of four top lawyers at multi­national companies would prefer to settle cross-border commercial disputes by arbitration rather than litigation, because of the unpredictability of decisions made by local courts. Key reasons put forward in favour of international arbitration include: more flexible procedures; the lack of publicity surrounding hearings; and the better chances of enforcing any awards made by an arbitration panel. 

But many in-house general counsel say international arbitration is at least is as expensive as litigation, particularly for fairly small disputes. Most also reject the idea of introducing an appeal system for arbitration decisions - could help appeals to remove some of the legal inconsistencies that exist between individual judgments, but they would inevitably add time and cost to the process.

The findings are the result of a study commissioned by consultants PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), with research done by Queen Mary's School of International Arbitration at the Uni­versity of London. The report comes as more companies invest abroad, and the complexity of cross-border disputes multiplies. As a result, there has been visible growth in the use of arbitra­tion and other ADR (alternative dispute resolution) procedures - for example, the International Chamber of Commerce's dispute resolution service has seen more than 500 requests for arbitration annually in recent years. 

Many big law firms have also been increasing their capacity in this area. The study itself centres on the responses of more than 100 in-house corporations. About half of these were in Europe. 30 per cent in Asia, and 15 per cent in the Americas. Most had annual sales of at least 500 million dollars.

According to the findings, 73 per cent of those questioned preferred to use international arbitration, either on its own or in conjunction with other dispute resolution mechanisms, such as mediation. By contrast, cross-border litigation was favoured by only 11 per cent. Gerry Lagerberg, PwC partner, said that this smaller group that still preferred litigation generally used very specialised courts - for example, patent so courts - or operated mainly in countries with well-regarded court systems. 

The most commonly cited reason for the remainder to avoid litigation was ‘anxiety about litigating under a foreign law before a court far from home' - although the cost and time involved and concern about lack of confidentiality were also mentioned. 

However, half the respondents also said cost was their main concern about arbitration. Surprisingly, two-thirds of the in-house lawyers believed this was more expensive than cross-border litigation, and another 23 per cent thought costs at least comparable. 

In spite of growing challenges to arbitration awards. 91 per cent of respondents rejected the idea of includ­ing an appeal mechanism in international arbitration, saying obtaining a final decision was more important.