Company: STAA
Filing Date: 2025-09-24
Form Type: DEFC14A
Source: 0001213900-25-090869
Chunk: 6

Company: STAAR SURGICAL CO
Filing Date: 2025-09-24
Form: DEFC14A
Chunk 6
---
 laser refractive surgery technologies are greater than was previously recognized3which, in our view, suggests that the Company’s market share gains are likely to accelerate in the future.

| 1 | See the Company’s Q1 2025 Earnings Call, available at https://investors.staar.com/~/media/Files/S/staar-surgical/investors/quarter-report/staar-surgical- 
 costaa-us-q1-2025-earnings-call-07052025.pdf (May 7, 2025) (“[W]e have spent the past few months addressing the short-term tactical                       
 issues like channel inventory, cost discipline and tariffs, so that we can soon turn our complete focus to more strategic growth-oriented                 
 activities.”).                                                                                                                                            |

<div align='center'>3</div>

In light
of STAAR’s promising future, it is puzzling to us that the Board chose this moment to sell the Company—and especially that
it chose to do so following a process that we believe was deficient and at a price we regard as inadequate.

For
these reasons, we oppose the Proposed Merger and are soliciting your proxy to vote “AGAINST” the adoption of
the Merger Agreement Proposal.

A Deficient Process

Competition
in the ophthalmic surgical market is intense, as STAAR acknowledges.4 There are several
global, well-capitalized companies that market lasers for corneal refractive surgery5(including
the LASIK procedure) and many more companies in adjacent or related businesses that we believe would view the Company as a complementary
and potentially attractive acquisition target.

Yet,
despite the existence of a ready pool of—in our view—logical, well-capitalized potential buyers, the Board chose to meaningfully
engage with only onecounterparty: Alcon.6 We believe the Company failed to conduct
any semblance of a market check or even solicit interest from a single alternative buyer.7
Worse still, the Board made this decision despite being aware of strategic interest from two parties—so-called “Party A”
and “Party B” in the Company’s proxy statement—both of whom reached out on their own to a Board member to express
a desire to engage in discussions regarding a transaction during the Company’s negotiations with Alcon.8Though the Company later invited both parties to make a proposal, it only did so just hours before the Merger Agreement was signed, providing neither of those parties with sufficient time to perform diligence and prepare a formal proposal.