Company: STAA
Filing Date: 2025-12-12
Form Type: DFAN14A
Source: 0001213900-25-121255
Chunk: 3

Company: STAAR SURGICAL CO
Filing Date: 2025-12-12
Form: DFAN14A
Chunk 3
---
ative, favored Alcon from the start, and could not,
in any event, be trusted because it was being run by the same conflicted Board, executives, lawyers, and bankers who negotiated the deeply
flawed deal with Alcon in the first place.”

In making its recommendation, Glass Lewis made
the following observations:

The Board Lacks Credibility and Unanimity

| ● | “[E]very step of the follow-on process,                                                                                        
 from adjournment to go-shop to revised offer, was overseen by a board whose procedural credibility was remarkably threadbare.” |

| ● | “The timing and cadence of STAAR’s postponements                                                                                     
 appear emblematic of a board committed to preserving the executed agreement with Alcon rather than simply acknowledging what appears 
 to have been exceptionally clear feedback from the Company’s investors.”                                                             |

| ● | “[T]he board previously stressed that                                                                                                
 the original arrangement was the best option available to investors, stating just one week prior to the since-scuppered October 2025 
 vote that the Company was ‘confident that the Alcon transaction [at $28.00 per share] maximizes value for STAAR shareholders’;       
 that quickly proved false under pressure from skeptical STAAR investors.”                                                            |

| ● | “Our concern is necessarily amplified by                                                                                      
 the fact that … not all members of the STAAR board agreed that the Company should further delay the vote in order to initiate 
 a prospectively low-value solicitation.”                                                                                      |

| 1 | Permission to use quotes was neither sought nor obtained. 
 Emphasis added.                                           |

The Go-Shop Process Was Ill-Designed and Favored Alcon

| ● | “… a fumbled set of adjournments                                                                                                                
 and a zero-hour bump after four full months of asserting the original terms were the best available together reinforce our initial perspective: 
 STAAR’s process was ineffective in establishing a competitive auction and, it seems, securing maximum value from Alcon.”                        |

| ● | “Any participant [in the go-shop] would                                                                                                
 be aware that at the conclusion of the go-shop, Alcon would immediately have access to any contemplated terms and would have four days 
 to potentially surface a topping bid. We expect this framework served as a procedural deterrent.”                                      |

The Increased Consideration is Still Inadequate

| ● | “Broadwood reasonably notes peers have enjoyed multiple expansion since execution of the original                           
 agreement, indicating some potential for standalone rerating, even in the