Multiple advisers on a M&A deal?

The dynamic that exists between two or more banks on an advisory assignment varies a lot based on many factors:

1) How well do the banks work together? Has there historically been a lot of animosity between the two banks when they've worked on previous transactions, where toes have been stepped on and MDs don't like each other? 2) Somewhat related to 1, do these banks compete for the same business? If Goldman is the lead bank with RBC as a co-advisor, it's much more likely to be a friendly dyanmic because RBC is not a threat to Goldman. If MS or JPM is the co-advisor, there will likely be a lot of competition 3) Who, at which bank, has the best relationship with the client? The MD with the strongest relationship at the target will usually drive the politics and dynamics of a transaction, whether the relationship is with a small business owner / CEO of the targert, or Partner of the sponsor who is exiting the company. 4) Economics. Economics between co-advisors is a strong driver of transaction dynamics. The more disproportionate the economics, the more disproportionate the set of responsibilities and work distribution is. More evenly split economics = more evenly split responsibilities.

How the above factors manifest during a transaction- 1) Who does the most of the work / all of the work / all of the "heavy lifting" 2) Who gets included / cut out of emails; which emails are "need to know" with the client 3) How much posturing / peacocking takes place with the client at the MD level 4) Generally how smooth the transaction goes between co advisors. The better the relationship, the less politics

As you can tell, there is a lot of politics when there are competing banks advising a single client.