Company: STAA
Filing Date: 2025-10-02
Form Type: DFAN14A
Source: 0001213900-25-095514
Chunk: 26

Company: STAAR SURGICAL CO
Filing Date: 2025-10-02
Form: DFAN14A
Chunk 26
---
 engage meaningfully with any potential acquirer other than Alcon and did not instruct its financial advisor, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (“Citi”), to reach out to other parties ▪ The Merger Agreement’s “window shop” provision is not a substitute for a fulsome process, in our view; such provisions almost ne ver lead to alternative bids, so it is no surprise that no parties came forward to attempt to break up a signed transaction ▪ Two other parties contacted one of STAAR’s directors during the sale process, but the Board did not provide diligence materia ls or engage with them and did not even invite those parties to submit proposals until hours before the Merger Agreement was signed ▪ We are aware of a CEO of a well - capitalized and leading ophthalmology company who reached out to the STAAR’s CEO and Chair in Ap ril 2025 seeking to discuss a strategic transaction; he was entirely ignored The Board Did Not Conduct Any Proactive Outreach and Seemingly Ignored Other Interested Parties ▪ STAAR’s entire sale process took place over just one month because, we believe, Alcon insisted on executing an agreement befo re stockholders learned of STAAR’s promising Q2 2025 results ▪ We cannot fathom why STAAR agreed to move so quickly; STAAR has ample cash, no debt and is expected to return to growth in 20 26; there was no urgent need to sell the Company The Process Was Rushed and Truncated ▪ STAAR’s management delivered its initial projections in late July; however, within just ten days, the management team deliver ed an entirely new – and much more conservative – set of projections, which ultimately formed the basis of the fairness opinion used to justify the M erger ▪ It is unclear why the management team abruptly changed its view on STAAR’s prospects in the final days before the Merger Agre eme nt was signed, but the revised projections resulted in a materially lower valuation range for STAAR ▪ STAAR’s financial advisor also used an excessive discount rate, artificially lowering the calculated intrinsic value, and a f law ed peer set The Fairness Opinion Was Predicated on Flawed and Potentially Manipulated Assumptions ▪ STAAR’s financial advisor was incentivized to facilitate a transaction with a $27 million fee contingent on the closing of th e M erger ▪ Several of STAAR’s current and former directors have close ties to Alcon which, in our view, may have impaired their objectiv ity