Company: STAA
Filing Date: 2025-12-08
Form Type: DFAN14A
Source: 0001213900-25-119309
Chunk: 7

Company: STAAR SURGICAL CO
Filing Date: 2025-12-08
Form: DFAN14A
Chunk 7
---
 With no change to the deal, we still intend to vote “ AGAINST” the transaction and encourage you to do the same.

STAAR’s Process Was Flawed from the Beginning

In our view, the Board has never sought to maximize shareholder value in accordance with its fiduciary duties, and that did not change with the belated go-shop process. The original agreement with Alcon was the result of a hasty and limited process during which neither STAAR nor its advisors performed any outreach. Two potential counterparties that proactively contacted STAAR were given short shrift as the Board rushed to finalize an agreement with Alcon before revealing the Company’s strong second-quarter financial results.

Worse yet, a credible strategic party from Europe was completely ignored by STAAR’s CEO and Board Chair. Not only did these individuals fail to respond to the CEO of this strategic party, but they deliberately withheld the expression of interest from the rest of the Board and shareholders. In fact, this interest would never have been known to shareholders—nor, incredibly, even to the Board—if we had not learned of it through our industry contacts and disclosed it. The Company belatedly acknowledged this expression of interest, but only after it was confronted by a proxy advisory firm. STAAR’s CEO and Chair were so intent on selling the Company to Alcon that they paid no attention to legitimate inbound interest and withheld extraordinarily relevant information from their fellow directors and shareholders. Because STAAR’s independent directors have very little experience overseeing public company M&A processes, it is no surprise to us that they were susceptible to the CEO’s and Chair’s influence and desire for a transaction with their preferred counterparty.

After cementing the original agreement with Alcon, the Board attempted to cover these deep procedural flaws with a “window shop” provision. Window shops, like go-shops, rarely result in alternative proposals, primarily because other counterparties are understandably reluctant to devote time and resources to conduct diligence and formulate a proposal when the parameters for doing so clearly favor the party whom the board has already chosen as its preferred merger partner. In this case, Alcon had “matching rights” that it could use, after gaining full access to an alternative bidder’s proposal, to match the alternative bid. Unsurprisingly, no third party bothered to expend the resources necessary to offer an alternative to Alcon’s proposal.

STAAR’S Proposed Deal Faces Overwhelming Opposition

The Board sought shareholder approval of the sale to Alcon at a special meeting of STAAR shareholders that was originally scheduled for October 23.