Company: STAA
Filing Date: 2025-12-08
Form Type: DFAN14A
Source: 0001213900-25-119309
Chunk: 9

Company: STAAR SURGICAL CO
Filing Date: 2025-12-08
Form: DFAN14A
Chunk 9
---
 advisor conveyed this fact to at least one potentially interested party as part of its initial outreach, seemingly to forewarn this party of the uphill battle they faced to supplant Alcon as STAAR’s preferred counterparty. It seems that the financial advisor’s invitation to engage was accompanied by a wink and a nudge that suggested, “don’t bother—this is a game you can’t win.”

We are also aware of a credible buyer with the capital, industry expertise, and strong interest in acquiring STAAR at a price higher than the Alcon bid that was told it had to sign a multi-year standstill to be granted access to diligence materials. This differs wildly from the NDA that Alcon itself signed (which had no standstill), even though Alcon was an unsolicited bidder for STAAR, and the ones supposedly offered to other parties in 2024 and early 2025, according to the proxy statement. The Board’s off-market demand was undoubtedly calculated to “run the clock” on the go-shop period and ward off this well-established private equity firm, which it did.

The fact that the Board did not receive alternative proposals during the go-shop period does not “validate” STAAR’s process, as the Board now claims. In our view, it is precisely becausethe playing field was so tilted that no party came forward. Why would any rational buyer knowingly enter into a bidding war with a well-capitalized party that has a) a months-long head start, b) superior information, c) the legal right to match or beat any proposal, and d) a close relationship with the target’s key leaders, especially when that party has demonstrated that it was willing to pay twice as much for the same asset just a year ago?

We do not blame sophisticated counterparties for declining to participate in a 100-meter race in which Alcon was given a 90-meter head start. We do, however, blame STAAR’s Board for overseeing yet another defective step in a deeply flawed process in which Alcon was afforded informational and procedural advantages.

At a fundamental level, we do not believe the Board has fulfilled its Revlonduties in a sale of a company for cash – to obtain the highest price reasonably available – with this defective initial process and its desperate, duct-tape go-shop process.

Nothing Has Changed

Apparently unmoved by overwhelming opposition from the Company’s shareholders and all three major proxy advisory firms, the Board is recklessly persisting with its support for this flawed deal, touting the go-shop process