Company: STAA
Filing Date: 2025-10-09
Form Type: DFAN14A
Source: 0001213900-25-097833
Chunk: 16

Company: STAAR SURGICAL CO
Filing Date: 2025-10-09
Form: DFAN14A
Chunk 16
---
.6x forward revenue, fell in the 34th percentile of comparable medical device
buyouts and well below STAAR’s historical trading multiples. In its words, the transaction “rests on a relatively recent trading
nadir” rather than fair value.

Its recommendation was unequivocal: shareholders
would be “better served scuppering the current arrangement in favor of either a full process reset or the unadulterated pursuit
of the company’s standalone potential.”

Broadwood’s four-part thesis: timing, process, conflicts, valuation

Broadwood’s campaign has long revolved around
four pillars: inopportune timing, a flawed process, a conflicted board, and a suboptimal valuation.

The firm argues STAAR’s board sold the company
“at the bottom” of a temporary downturn rather than a structural decline, ignored alternative bidders, allowed conflicts tied
to Alcon to taint deliberations, and accepted a price that fails to reflect the company’s dominant technology and recovery prospects.

In its latest filings, Broadwood accuses STAAR’s
leadership of revising internal forecasts downward days before the board vote, engineering a lower valuation that aligned neatly with
Alcon’s bid. It also alleges Citigroup used an unjustifiably high cost of capital in its discounted cash flow analysis, artificially
compressing the fair value range. Under standard assumptions, Broadwood estimates STAAR’s fair value at over $41 per share.

The hedge fund’s opposition began to intensify
after STAAR’s initial proxy revealed that two potential buyers, referred to as Party A and Party B, described respectively as a
private equity firm with Chinese portfolio interests and a healthcare investment platform, had reached out to a board member on August
3, just one day before the Alcon deal was signed. The board gave them less than 24 hours to respond. Broadwood argues this effectively
shut down competition and ensured Alcon would remain the only bidder.

Broadwood has also criticized potential conflicts
of interest on the board, pointing to Chair Dr. Elizabeth Yeu’s prior consulting relationship with Alcon, which remained active
when the company first expressed interest in a deal.

Additionally, STAAR’s 45-day “window
shop” period expired September 19 without competing proposals. Afterward, the breakup fee payable to Alcon nearly quadrupled, further
discouraging new bids. Broadwood says the sale process inherently created this lack of offers; STAAR says it’s the other way around,