Israeli company Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. TARO +2.79% and Indian parent Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. 524715.BY -0.45% have mutually agreed to terminate a go-private agreement that was struck last year, ending a protracted courtship that began in 2011.
- What does the bold part suggest?
In a statement, the companies said “terminating the merger agreement was in the best interest of the respective companies and shareholders.”
- Does the “in” in the above sentence work in the same way it’s working in the following sentence ?
He was in the room.
online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 27264.html
terminating the merger agreement was the best interest of the respective companies and shareholders.
I understand the meaning of the above part. My question is- does it , omitting “in” , change the original meaning?
The sentence would be interpreted in the same way without “in”, but it is less usual, and may look like a typo. As I mentioned, “in the (best) interest(s) of” is a set form of words. The word “in” is an integral part of that pattern.
Thanks, Dozy. I understand now.
I didn’t type it I just copied it from the link that I added in beginning post of this thread. Perhaps it is a typo of “Wall Street Journal(An U.S newspaper)”
RC, I think there may be some misunderstanding. There is no typo in the original text of that article. I meant that if you remove the word “in” it may look like a typo.
Yes Dozy, I misunderstood you. I understood that your were pointing out my typo as you wanted me to notice the following modification.
As I mentioned, “in the (best) interest(s) of” is a set form of words.
That was meant to give an idea of the variations that can exist in that set form of words. Parts in brackets are optional. “in the best interest of” is fine; alternatively the word “best” can be omitted (with some change of emphasis), and/or “interest” can be “interests”, usually with little change of meaning.