"on its own"

[pink dragon]

Company A absorbed some of Company B, Company C swallowed some bits of Company D on its own and then Company E in its entirety.

I guess "on its own" means "by itself" in this sentence.
But I don't understand what the writer really wanted to say.
Does he want to say that Company C swallowed some bits of Company D "alone, not with any other company"???

[A reply from ENGLISH NATIVE SPEAKERS would be appreciated. ]

[pink dragon]

But I need to translate it as a kind of homework, so I need to completely understand it.

[Anglika]

Company A absorbed some of Company B, Company C swallowed some bits of Company D on its own and then Company E in its entirety.

I guess "on its own" means "by itself" in this sentence.
But I don't understand what the writer really wanted to say.
Does he want to say that Company C swallowed some bits of Company D "alone, not with any other company"???

[A reply from ENGLISH NATIVE SPEAKERS would be appreciated. ]

Company A took over parts of Company B
Company C took over parts of Company D and all of Company E.

What is not clear is if Company C on its own took over parts of Company D, or whether it took over parts of Company D alone.

[pink dragon]

I see. Thank you, Neall Beag and Anglika.

[RonBee]

Company A absorbed some of Company B, Company C swallowed some bits of Company D on its own and then Company E in its entirety.

I guess "on its own" means "by itself" in this sentence.
But I don't understand what the writer really wanted to say.
Does he want to say that Company C swallowed some bits of Company D "alone, not with any other company"???

[A reply from ENGLISH NATIVE SPEAKERS would be appreciated. ]

I agree with Neall Beag. For starters, it needs to be two sentences. And that is just for starters. The first sentence (or what should be the first sentence):

Company A absorbed some of Company B.

What happened to the rest of Company B?


Sentence two:

Company C swallowed some bits of Company D on its own and then (bought) Company E in its entirety.

I don't know what on its own is supposed to mean there. In my opinion, the statement in question confuses more than clarifies.

~R