Fairness Opinion vs. Financial AdvisorO
Was wondering if someone could explain to me the subtleties associated when an IB acts as a "financial advisor" in an M&A deal as opposed to a bank which renders a fairness opinion. In a press release I was reading there were three groups the acquirer, the acquisition/target, and then some transaction committee in which the bank I was looking at acted as the financial advisor to the committee while Lazard rendered a fairness opinion. If one assumes the committee is comprised of members of both companies why would the committee itself need a financial advisor AND also require a fairness opinion?
BTW is a third party "committee" usually formed in the event of an acquisition/merger?