Company: STAA
Filing Date: 2025-09-15
Form Type: PREC14A
Source: 0001213900-25-087448
Chunk: 6

Company: STAAR SURGICAL CO
Filing Date: 2025-09-15
Form: PREC14A
Chunk 6
---
 market share gains are likely to accelerate in the future.

| 1 | See the Company’s Q1 2025 Earnings Call, available                                                                                                 
 at https://investors.staar.com/~/media/Files/S/staar-surgical/investors/quarter-report/staar-surgical-costaa-us-q1-2025-earnings-call-07052025.pdf 
 (May 7, 2025) (“[W]e have spent the past few months addressing the short-term tactical issues like channel inventory, cost discipline              
 and tariffs, so that we can soon turn our complete focus to more strategic growth-oriented activities.”).                                          |

<div align='center'>3</div>

In light of
STAAR’s promising future, it is puzzling to us that the Board chose this moment to sell the Company—and especially
that it chose to do so following a process that we believe was deficient and at a price we regard as inadequate.

For these reasons, we oppose
the Proposed Merger and are soliciting your proxy to vote “AGAINST” the adoption of the Merger Agreement Proposal.

A Deficient Process

Competition in the ophthalmic
surgical market is intense, as STAAR acknowledges.4
There are several global, well-capitalized companies that market lasers for corneal refractive surgery5
(including the LASIK procedure) and many more companies in adjacent or related businesses that we believe would view the Company as a
complementary and potentially attractive acquisition target.

Yet, despite the existence
of a ready pool of—in our view—logical, well-capitalized potential buyers, the Board chose to meaningfully engage with only
one counterparty: Alcon.6 We believe
the Company failed to conduct any semblance of a market check or even solicit interest from a single alternative buyer.7
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.8
Though the Company later invited both parties to make a proposal, it only did so just hours before the Merger Agreement was signed,
providing neither of those parties with sufficient time to perform diligence and prepare a formal proposal.

The Board attempts to justify
its failure to legitimately seek alternative proposals by claiming that it surmised