Series 79 practice questionhardFairness Opinions
An investment bank serving as both financial advisor and provider of a fairness opinion in a merger stands to receive a significant success fee contingent on deal completion. Which of the following best describes the primary concern with this arrangement?
- AThe arrangement is illegal under the Williams Act
- BThe contingent fee creates a potential conflict of interest that may undermine the independence of the fairness opinion✓ Correct answer
- CThe investment bank must waive its advisory fee to issue the opinion
- DThe SEC must pre-approve all fairness opinion fee arrangements
Explanation
Why B — The contingent fee creates a potential conflict of interest that may undermine the independence of the fairness opinion
When the financial advisor providing the fairness opinion has a contingent fee tied to deal completion, there is an inherent conflict of interest because the advisor has a financial incentive to opine that the deal is fair. This conflict must be disclosed in the proxy statement or tender offer documents. Some boards mitigate this by engaging a separate, independent financial advisor solely to render the fairness opinion, though this practice is not legally required in all jurisdictions.
Turn it into reps
Reading one answer is not the same as being ready
Lucky the Banker is a free practice app with 477+ Series 79 questions, weak-area tracking, and timed mock exams. No credit card, no paywall.
Related M&A, Tender Offers & Restructuring questions
- A 'no-shop' clause in a merger agreement prohibits the target company from:
- A financial advisor provides a fairness opinion stating that the $35 per share offer is 'fair, from a financial point…
- A 'go-shop' provision in a merger agreement allows the target company to:
- Which of the following valuation methodologies would most likely be used in preparing a fairness opinion?