Company: STAA
Filing Date: 2025-12-11
Form Type: PX14A6G
Source: 0001213900-25-120342
Chunk: 2

Company: STAAR SURGICAL CO
Filing Date: 2025-12-11
Form: PX14A6G
Chunk 2
---
 it because STAAR
is at a strategic inflection and rebound point. As we have discussed before – and we know other shareholders heard us – excess
distributor inventory that pressured results beginning in 2023 is gradually normalizing. Demand indicators in China’s refractive
market have begun to improve following last year’s slowdown. Recent quarterly results issued by the Company itself reflect sequential
operational momentum and cost discipline progress. The business appears to be turning the corner – precisely as the Board is attempting
to sell it.

We have no reason to believe that this trajectory has changed in the
last 30 days.

Seeking alternative bidders during a compressed 30-day period could
not solve the problem that the Company should not be for sale now. If a materially superior offer had emerged, we would have reconsidered
our position. But, as we expected, the structure of this process made such an outcome improbable, and no such offer emerged.

The Go-Shop Was Structured to Seal the Alcon Deal

The structural issues in the go-shop were evident from the outset.

A 30-day period is too short to support a meaningful market check for
a company with STAAR’s global distribution footprint, regulatory complexity, and manufacturing profile. Any credible strategic or
financial acquirer would require time to analyze regulatory conditions across multiple jurisdictions, assess pricing dynamics in key markets,
conduct due-diligence on manufacturing, supply chain, and growth forecasts, coordinate consortium or financing partners, and obtain board
or investment-committee approvals.

Moreover, under the merger agreement amendment enabling the go-shop,
Alcon was contractually entitled to receive all additional non-public information provided to any potential bidder within one business
day, and retained the ability to review any superior proposal from an alternative bidder for four business days following the go-shop
period. These provisions were likely to discourage alternative bidders.

Broadwood Partners accurately described STAAR as “utterly disingenuous”
in touting the point that Alcon had “agreed to give up any matching rights during the go-shop period,” when Alcon had retained
its right to review any superior proposal from an alternative bidder for four business days following the go-shop period before the Board
could move ahead with the alternative proposal. The Company’s wording appears intended to portray Alcon as having a hands-off role
in the process – when the opposite was true.

If STAAR’s Board had been committed to seeking fair value and
maximizing shareholder value, it would have allowed the current agreement to terminate