Company: STAA
Filing Date: 2025-12-16
Form Type: PX14A6G
Source: 0001213900-25-122243
Chunk: 1

Company: STAAR SURGICAL CO
Filing Date: 2025-12-16
Form: PX14A6G
Chunk 1
---
, 2025

Dear Fellow STAAR Shareholders:

Following our review of the updated reports of the proxy advisory services
ISS and Glass Lewis, Yunqi Capital remains opposed to STAAR’s proposed merger with Alcon, even at the revised offer price of $30.75.

We agree with the continued, strong recommendation of Glass Lewis
against the merger, as well as with the extensive rationale for Glass Lewis’s opposition set forth in its most recently updated
report. While we disagree with ISS’s recent decision to change its recommendation in favor of the proposed transaction, we underscore
that ISS also observed that “it would not necessarily be unreasonable for a shareholder to remain opposed to this transaction.”

Recent events indicate shareholder value will be maximized if the Company
terminates the current agreement and initiates a normal strategic alternatives review in the future.

When first announcing the conclusion of the go-shop period in a press
release, STAAR did not inform shareholders about the appearance, during the go-shop period, of a well-known, credible potential buyer
with the capital, industry expertise, buyout experience, and interest to acquire STAAR at a higher price. We are not taking issue with
whether STAAR should have disclosed this in its first press release; we are simply highlighting that the third party emerged.

| 1 | Permission to use quotes was neither sought nor obtained. |

STAAR then updated shareholders about the appearance of this new third
party after questions were raised by other stockholders. When finally acknowledging the appearance of this third party in a second, follow-up
press release, STAAR claimed that the potential buyer did not contact STAAR until the beginning of the third week of the go-shop period.
STAAR related this claim as if it should be taken to undercut the credibility and meaningfulness of the third party’s outreach.

But STAAR’s confirmation of the third-party outreach illustrates
the insufficiency of STAAR’s go-shop process.

STAAR had told shareholders in its first press release following the
go-shop period, that it had solicited acquisition proposals from a “wide range of potentially interested third parties,” yet
it missed a well-known and credible party, which also happens to have extensive experience and presence in Asia. STAAR then chose to name
this third party in the same follow-up press release, in an unconventional manner. That appears to have chased away the third party, at
least for the time being.

While the Company states that it engaged with 21 third parties, we
believe there are far