Altice International S.a.r.l., the Luxembourg-based telecommunications group with businesses in Portugal, Israel and the Dominican Republic, faces a creditor lawsuit challenging billions of dollars in alleged asset transfers and the removal of guarantees and much of the collateral backing approximately $9 billion in secured debt. Funds associated with Arini, Invesco, Sona, Diameter and Elliott, along with other investment vehicles, filed the October 13 action in New York County Supreme Court’s Commercial Division against Altice Financing, Altice International and related companies.

The creditors say the transactions moved valuable businesses and repayment rights to other entities controlled by Patrick Drahi, leaving the companies responsible for the debt with fewer assets and less income to repay it. They seek to unwind the transfers, restore guarantees and collateral, recover damages and prevent further transfers.

The complaint says Altice International and certain subsidiaries owe funded debt creditors more than $11 billion. Approximately $9 billion in secured debt is implicated in the disputed collateral arrangements.

The plaintiffs bringing the specified 2028 noteholder claims hold approximately $732 million in senior secured notes. Those bringing the term-loan claims hold more than $1.5 billion in loans under the credit agreement.

Altice Financing is the borrower under the credit agreement and issuer of the secured notes. Its parent, Altice International, guarantees those obligations, along with subsidiary guarantors. The creditors say their financing relied on the assets and cash flow of a defined group of companies, including Altice Portugal and Altice Caribbean, and on contractual restrictions designed to keep that value available for repayment.

Intercompany Loans and Cancelled Repayment Obligations

The creditors first challenge approximately $5.4 billion in value transferred from Altice International or its subsidiaries to Altice Luxembourg, its parent, beginning in 2021. Those transfers were recorded as intercompany loans.

The complaint argues the loans offered little real protection because Altice Luxembourg had no operating business generating cash to repay them, repayment dates were repeatedly extended and interest arrangements did not provide meaningful compensation. Creditors say Altice International exchanged valuable assets for receivables against a parent whose own assets were subsequently moved elsewhere.

The lawsuit also challenges transactions that reduced those receivables.

Altice International had issued mandatory convertible notes to Altice Luxembourg in 2015. According to the creditors, Altice International could have converted the notes into equity at no cost beginning in 2020. Instead, it accrued nearly $1 billion in PIK interest, which Altice Luxembourg used to offset amounts it owed under the intercompany loans.

A further transaction in April 2026 cancelled approximately $2.4 billion in intercompany-loan obligations. The complaint says Altice International converted the mandatory convertible notes into roughly 2.055 billion new shares, then immediately cancelled those shares. The cancellation created a payment obligation to Altice Luxembourg that was used to offset another $2.4 billion of the parent’s debt to Altice International.

Creditors characterize that sequence as an unnecessary obligation created to erase a valuable receivable without compensation.

British Telecom, Altice France and OXG

The complaint separately challenges the treatment of an intercompany loan exceeding $680 million that Altice International provided to Altice UK to help finance British Telecom shares.

Altice UK later sold its BT holdings for approximately $4 billion, but creditors say it did not repay the loan. Instead, the repayment obligation was shifted from Altice UK to Altice Group Lux and then Altice Luxembourg. They argue that this removed Altice International’s ability to collect from the entity that received the stock-sale proceeds.

The creditors also challenge the movement of Altice France ownership interests from Altice Luxembourg to Altice Group Lux sometime between late 2024 and September 2025. They value the transferred interests at approximately $6.7 billion and say Altice Luxembourg received no consideration.

Those shares were assets of Altice Luxembourg, which owed the intercompany loans to Altice International. Creditors argue that moving them weakened the parent’s ability to repay those loans and, in turn, Altice International’s ability to satisfy its own creditors.

Another disputed transaction concerns Altice Luxembourg’s former 50% interest in OXG, a German fiber joint venture with Vodafone.

The complaint says the stake was transferred to Geodesia, another Drahi-affiliated company, without meaningful consideration. Geodesia subsequently agreed, around September 1, 2026, to sell the interest to Société Générale. Creditors say the transfer diverted an asset and potential sale proceeds that otherwise could have supported repayment of Altice Luxembourg’s obligations to Altice International.

These transactions involve different assets and repayment rights, some connected to the same intercompany obligations. 

“Project Déjà Vu” Removed Key Businesses From Creditor Protections

A central part of the lawsuit is “Project Déjà Vu,” announced November 28, 2025, involving Altice Portugal and Altice Caribbean, the holding company above the Dominican business.

The complaint describes 3 steps: designation of the companies as unrestricted subsidiaries, new financing against Portuguese assets and transfer of the Caribbean ownership interests outside the restricted group.

By designating Altice Portugal and Altice Caribbean as unrestricted subsidiaries, the defendants purported to release them from guarantees, liens and covenants protecting the existing secured creditors. The creditors say those designations violated their financing agreements.

Altice Portugal then obtained approximately $865 million in private financing reportedly provided by Fidera Group. The plaintiffs argue that financing was placed structurally ahead of their claims. They also say Altice International told the market it could raise another $2.3 billion against Portuguese assets on a similar basis.

The Caribbean transaction moved ownership interests outside the restricted group through a series of corporate steps involving Altice Holdings and entities above it. Creditors say that transfer was made without consideration.

The Portuguese and Dominican businesses accounted for 79.8% of Altice International’s adjusted EBITDA before the transaction, according to the complaint. The creditors contend the changes removed most of the group’s earning power and roughly 80% of the collateral value backing the relevant 2028 notes from their protections.

They argue that the transaction amounted to a disposal of all or substantially all relevant assets and that the collateral release required consent from holders of at least 75% of the outstanding principal amount of the relevant 2028 notes.

Creditors Say Repayment Prospects Have Deteriorated

The plaintiffs say the transactions left Altice International insolvent and unlikely to repay debt coming due in 2027.

Their analysis puts the restricted group’s net secured leverage at more than 25 times adjusted EBITDA after Project Déjà Vu, compared with 5.2 times beforehand. 

They also cite falling debt prices following the November 2025 announcement. The complaint says certain 2028 secured notes fell from approximately 77 cents to 66 cents on the dollar within a week, while certain 2029 notes fell from approximately 74 cents to 65 cents. Unsecured notes fell from the mid-30s to around 18 cents.

A pricing table dated September 23, 2026 shows a weighted average price of approximately 58.3 cents for the secured notes and term loans listed, and approximately 10.9 cents for the single listed unsecured bond. Those are historical prices cited in the filing and not current market quotes. 

Default Notice and Potential Acceleration

The creditors say they repeatedly sought information about the transactions, sending requests in April and August 2024, May and October 2025, and April 2026, as well as a formal notice in December 2025. According to the complaint, defendants responded with denials or assertions of compliance without providing sufficient supporting information.

On July 14, 2026, holders representing more than 25% of the relevant 2028 senior secured notes delivered a default notice to Altice Financing and the trustee. The complaint says some alleged breaches constituted immediate events of default and others were subject to cure periods that have since expired.

The noteholders also asked the trustee to pursue remedies and offered an indemnity. They say the trustee acknowledged the request but took no action within more than 60 days.

The plaintiffs state that they hold sufficient debt to support acceleration under the relevant financing agreements and intend to demand payment in full once a court determines that an event of default occurred. The complaint does not establish that this contemplated acceleration has already taken place.

Relief Sought

The lawsuit contains 27 claims, including alleged breaches of financing covenants, improper releases of collateral and guarantees, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and actual and constructive fraudulent transfers. It also brings claims under Luxembourg law seeking to make the disputed transactions unenforceable against the creditors.

The plaintiffs ask the court to declare that defaults are continuing and that the unrestricted-subsidiary designations and related releases are void.

They seek restoration of value transferred through the intercompany loans; return of Altice France, OXG and Caribbean ownership interests or sale proceeds; and reversal of the changes to the Altice UK loan obligations and related maturity extension.

Alternatively, they seek money judgments against recipients of the transferred value and senior first-priority liens over transferee assets. They also seek damages for reductions in collateral value, including those allegedly caused by new Portuguese borrowing, and an order directing that recoveries benefit the creditor plaintiffs.

The requested relief includes an injunction against further fraudulent transfers by Altice International and Altice Luxembourg, punitive damages, and legal fees and expenses.

Scott J. Greenberg, C. Lee Wilson, Michael J. Cohen, S. Robert Marsters, Jr. and Jonghyun (John) Lee of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP represent the plaintiffs.