Company: STAA
Filing Date: 2025-09-26
Form Type: DEFA14A
Source: 0001193125-25-219844
Chunk: 27

Company: STAAR SURGICAL CO
Filing Date: 2025-09-26
Form: DEFA14A
Chunk 27
---
 would compete with the value presented by the Alcon offer When Alcon made its July 2025 offer, the business was volatile. The Board recognized the value and certainty of the offer and did not want to jeopardize the offer in hand Conducting a pre-signing market check could have caused Alcon to walk away again or reduce its offer price STAAR’s financial profile, particularly its negative cash flows, would likely preclude private equity buyers O P Between media reports of takeover interest in STAAR and announcement of merger, but no buyers emerged 13 months Broadwood Has an Unrealistic View of Potential Buyer Interest No competing proposals received during the “window shop” period despite Broadwood’s active exploration of alternative buyers 45 days Other than Alcon, STAAR has not received any acquisition proposal in at least the last 10 years 10+ years “We believe the Company failed to conduct any semblance of a market check or even solicit interest from a single alternative buyer…. We believe a board that was properly focused on maximizing stockholder value would, at a minimum, have initiated contact with other potential counterparties, even if only to generate interest, foment competitive tension, and facilitate price discovery.” Broadwood Claims O 1% break-up fee EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | PREMIUM VALUE | STANDALONE RISKS | THOUGHTFUL EVALUATION | BROADWOOD CLAIMS A Lack of any competing proposals validates Board’s conclusion that there are no other buyers Nominal break-up fee during the “window shop” period NOT a deterrent to potential buyers

“Party A” and “Party B” emailed only vague communications, NOT proposals. Neither submitted a proposal even after follow-up from STAAR’s CEO “Worse still, the Board made this decision despite being aware of strategic interest from two parties—so-called ‘Party A’ and ‘Party B’ in the Company’s proxy statement—both of whom reached out on their own to a Board member to express a desire to engage in discussions regarding a transaction during the Company’s negotiations with Alcon.” The Reality… “Party A” and “Party B” emails were only vague communications No information on valuation, timing, diligence requirements, financing capability, transaction structure or other terms, only introductory outreach No actionable response despite CEO following up the next day stating that “the Board would be interested in any proposal that you may have” No proposals received during the “window shop” period, including from “Party A” or “Party B” P Broadwood Claims O “…I had