Company: STAA
Filing Date: 2025-12-10
Form Type: DFAN14A
Source: 0001213900-25-120140
Chunk: 5

Company: STAAR SURGICAL CO
Filing Date: 2025-12-10
Form: DFAN14A
Chunk 5
---
 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 and, at the appropriate time and
from a position of strength, initiated a disciplined strategic alternatives review with a full market canvass – rather than a constrained
process that favored Alcon.

The Go-Shop Was Then Conducted to Seal the Alcon Deal

STAAR’s implementation of the go-shop further
suggests to us that the process was designed primarily to secure the Alcon transaction.

The Company states it engaged with 21 third parties.
In our view, there are far more than 21 potentially interested strategic and financial parties globally.

STAAR further disclosed that only two parties
signed NDAs. However, Broadwood stated on December 9 that at least one additional credible buyer, with the capital, industry expertise,
and interest to acquire STAAR at a higher price, was told it must sign a multi-year standstill to access diligence materials. Broadwood
has indicated that other parties received similarly restrictive demands.

STAAR has not addressed these facts or described
the terms of the proposed NDAs it offered, or whether such terms may have deterred discussions with credible bidders.

The Company also declined in its most recent press
release to address the respective roles of management and the Board in managing and overseeing the go-shop outreach. Did the Board know
that management was imposing NDAs with multi-year standstills on potential bidders and did they recognize these terms may have been deterring
credible parties from engaging? Did the Board and management discuss potentially adjusting these terms to encourage diligence at any level?

<div align='center'>2</div>

Shareholders have no information on these questions