Company: STAA
Filing Date: 2025-12-16
Form Type: DFAN14A
Source: 0001213900-25-122330
Chunk: 7

Company: STAAR SURGICAL CO
Filing Date: 2025-12-16
Form: DFAN14A
Chunk 7
---
 in response to the updated reports of Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (“ISS”) and Glass, Lewis &
Co., LLC (“Glass Lewis”) regarding the proposed acquisition of STAAR by Alcon Inc. (“Alcon”) (SIX/NYSE: ALC).

The text of the letter is as follows:

December 17, 2025

Dear Fellow STAAR Shareholders:

Following our review of the updated reports of
the proxy advisory services ISS and Glass Lewis, Yunqi Capital remains opposed to STAAR’s proposed merger with Alcon, even at the
revised offer price of $30.75.

We agree with the continued, strong recommendation
of Glass Lewis against the merger, as well as with the extensive rationale for Glass Lewis’s opposition set forth in its most recently
updated report. While we disagree with ISS’s recent decision to change its recommendation in favor of the proposed transaction,
we underscore that ISS also observed that “it would not necessarily be unreasonable for a shareholder to remain opposed to this
transaction.”

Recent events indicate shareholder value will
be maximized if the Company terminates the current agreement and initiates a normal strategic alternatives review in the future.

When first announcing the conclusion of the go-shop
period in a press release, STAAR did not inform shareholders about the appearance, during the go-shop period, of a well-known, credible
potential buyer with the capital, industry expertise, buyout experience, and interest to acquire STAAR at a higher price. We are not taking
issue with whether STAAR should have disclosed this in its first press release; we are simply highlighting that the third party emerged.

STAAR then updated shareholders about the appearance
of this new third party after questions were raised by other stockholders. When finally acknowledging the appearance of this third party
in a second, follow-up press release, STAAR claimed that the potential buyer did not contact STAAR until the beginning of the third week
of the go-shop period. STAAR related this claim as if it should be taken to undercut the credibility and meaningfulness of the third party’s
outreach.

But STAAR’s confirmation of the third-party
outreach illustrates the insufficiency of STAAR’s go-shop process.

STAAR had told shareholders in its first press
release following the go-shop period, that it had solicited acquisition proposals from a “wide range of potentially interested third
parties,” yet it missed a well-known and credible party, which also happens to have extensive experience and presence in Asia. STAAR
then