Company: STAA
Filing Date: 2025-09-16
Form Type: DEFM14A
Source: 0001193125-25-204396
Chunk: 74

Company: STAAR SURGICAL CO
Filing Date: 2025-09-16
Form: DEFM14A
Chunk 74
---
ger—Certain Unaudited Prospective Financial Information”), which were prepared by
management following discussions with the Board at its July 6, 2025 meeting. For more information, see “The Merger—Certain Unaudited Prospective Financial Information.” The Board was advised that Citi intended to use
the Projections in its financial analysis, and authorized Citi to use that information for purposes of the financial analysis underlying its fairness opinion. Representatives from Citi then reviewed with the Board preliminary financial information
relating to STAAR based on the Projections. In addition, representatives of Citi provided their perspectives on alternative potential buyers, as well as potential benefits and risks associated with outreach to them at that time. The Board also
discussed the risks of proceeding with the proposed transaction if Broadwood did not support the transaction, the value represented by Alcon’s proposed offer and the potential risks and benefits of remaining as a standalone company, the
likelihood of obtaining stockholder approval of a transaction with Alcon, and the costs and risks associated with a transaction that was submitted to STAAR’s stockholders but not approved by STAAR’s stockholders. Representatives of
Wachtell Lipton provided guidance to the Board regarding its fiduciary duties under Delaware law and proposed transaction terms, including terms relating to a “window-shop” provision and related termination fees, and the regulatory
commitment and regulatory termination fee from Alcon. The Board discussed the possibility that a competing bid might emerge post-signing, as well as limitations in the merger agreement on STAAR’s ability to solicit or engage with such

-45-

bidders. In this regard, one of STAAR’s directors indicated that she had been contacted by two parties–a private equity firm with economic interests in a portfolio company in China
(“Party A”), and a healthcare investment platform (“Party B”)–each of whom had expressed an interest in exploring potential opportunities involving STAAR. Neither party had indicated any views on valuation, timing,
diligence requirements, financing capability, transaction structure or other transaction terms. Following discussion, the Board determined that it was in the best interests of STAAR to continue negotiations with Alcon, provided that Alcon made
progress on key terms in the merger agreement, including with respect to the terms of a “go shop” or “window shop” provision, but that the director should respond to Party A and Party B and direct them to contact
Mr. Farrell, who could respond prior to execution of the Merger Agreement.