Company: STAA
Filing Date: 2025-12-08
Form Type: DFAN14A
Source: 0001213900-25-119309
Chunk: 8

Company: STAAR SURGICAL CO
Filing Date: 2025-12-08
Form: DFAN14A
Chunk 8
---
 Ahead of that meeting, shareholders representing nearly 35% of the Company’s outstanding shares publicly opposed the transaction and all three proxy advisory firms recommended shareholders vote against the deal. We believe the proposed transaction was headed for certain and overwhelming defeat at the ballot box, which would have allowed STAAR to exit this poorly timed and priced deal without a termination fee and then pursue a credible process, continue its recovery as an independent company, or both. But instead of heeding the call from shareholders, the Board postponed the meeting three times, scrambling to find a way to complete a transaction that shareholders did not want.

Rather than extracting a sizable price concession from Alcon as a means to win shareholder support, the Board – with less than unanimous support – tried to rescue its favored transaction by creating a simulacrum of a sound process through a belated, bolt-on go-shop period.

STAAR’s Belated Go-Shop Process Was Futile

As we have said repeatedly, we are aware of substantial interest from strategic and financial parties in acquiring STAAR. And, in a fair and competitive process, those parties would express strong interest and likely make proposals to acquire STAAR. But STAAR has never sought proposals from the logical buyers on a fair playing field.

STAAR’s “Hail Mary” go-shop was not an even playing field and was not a substitute for a fair and competitive process. In fact, we believe this performative go-shop process was doomed from the beginning and was conducted only to provide cover for the existing agreement with Alcon.

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

For example, Alcon retained matching rights. Notably, the Company was utterly disingenuous in announcing the go-shop process when it attempted to convince shareholders that Alcon had magnanimously stepped aside to allow a fair process. In touting the process to shareholders, the Board said that Alcon “has agreed to give up any matching rights should a superior proposal be made during the go-shop period.” (Emphasis added.) But the Board conveniently failed to mention that, under the merger agreement amendment, Alcon didhave those matching rights for four days immediately following the go-shop period. Those matching rights would not be lost on potential alternative bidders and their legal advisors.

Alcon, in fact, retained the right to receive notice of any superior proposals and to all critical information regarding those proposals, as well as the opportunity to match or otherwise submit an improved bid. Obviously, no other party had a similar right. Worse still, we understand that STAAR’s financial