Company: STAA
Filing Date: 2025-12-11
Form Type: PX14A6G
Source: 0001213900-25-120342
Chunk: 3

Company: STAAR SURGICAL CO
Filing Date: 2025-12-11
Form: PX14A6G
Chunk 3
---
 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?

Shareholders have no information on these questions and it is unclear
whether the Board exercised meaningful oversight of a process that directly impacts shareholder value at a critical moment. Based on the
limited information provided, the NDA terms appear to us to have served to discourage interested bidders.

Now Is Not the Right Time To Sell, and the Revised Offer Is Insufficient

We agree with Broadwood Partners that the absence of competing proposals
does not “validate” the go-shop process – contrary to the Company’s assertions. In our assessment, similar to
that of Broadwood Partners, the process was structured in a way that all but ensured no credible bidder would participate. A credible
acquirer would be, at best, reluctant to enter into a process where Alcon enjoyed a significant timing advantage, access to substantially
more information, the effective right to match any alternative offer, and long-standing ties to STAAR’s leadership – especially
given that Alcon itself assigned a valuation to the Company roughly double the current offer less than