This Comment examines the mischief that the Daisy ruling could make. Though advisors such as attorneys and auditors have previously been held to be fiduciaries of their clients, the Daisy court’s broad application of these duties to investment bankers poses unique problems. The first Part begins with a brief survey of pre-Daisy cases dealing with the responsibilities owed by bankers to their clients, and then turns to Daisy itself. The second Part discusses the Daisy court’s broad conception of the role of bankers in change-of-control transactions. The final Part is a policy and doctrinal critique of the Daisy rule, focusing especially on the undesirable incentives provided to bankers as a result of the holding. The Comment concludes that the court’s decision in Daisy promulgates a liability regime desirable neither as a matter of corporate governance nor as a shareholderprotection device.