Two funds advised by GoldenTree Asset Management LP have brought a New York complaint against Altice International S.a.r.l., founder Patrick Drahi and eight directors, alleging that a series of transactions moved billions of dollars in value beyond the reach of secured creditors. The complaint is the third New York action challenging many of the same transactions and the first of the three to name Drahi and the directors personally. GoldenTree seeks to restore guarantees and collateral for first lien creditors and recover damages from the individuals it says approved or directed the transfers. 

The plaintiffs are GoldenTree 2004 Trust and GTAM 110 Designated Activity Company. Both hold senior secured term loans made to Altice Financing S.A., and GTAM 110 also holds 2028 senior secured notes governed by a January 2020 indenture. The 2028 notes include a 5% dollar series and a 3% euro series. Altice International and certain subsidiaries guaranteed the notes. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas serves as indenture trustee, and Citibank, N.A., London Branch serves as security agent. The plaintiffs say the New York law indenture limited affiliate transactions, shareholder distributions and the release of guarantees and collateral.

The centerpiece of the complaint is Project Déjà Vu, announced in November 2025. Altice International designated Altice Portugal and Altice Caribbean as unrestricted subsidiaries and treated their guarantees and collateral as released. The two businesses accounted for approximately 80% of adjusted EBITDA, according to the complaint. The Portuguese business, which includes MEO, remained within Altice International’s ownership structure but outside the restrictions imposed by the existing debt documents. Ownership of Altice Caribbean, which held the Dominican operations, moved out of Altice International altogether to an entity higher in Drahi’s corporate structure. 

The Portuguese business could raise debt against its own assets and cash flows, giving the new lenders priority at the operating company level. According to the complaint, a Portuguese subsidiary raised €750 million in private financing, reportedly from Fidera Group. Altice also announced that it had reserved another €2 billion of borrowing capacity at Altice Portugal. For the businesses that remained subject to the debt covenants, the complaint cites quarterly adjusted EBITDA of €78 million, compared with €371 million before excluding Portugal and the Dominican Republic, while more than €8 billion in net debt remained outstanding. The €2 billion represents additional borrowing capacity announced by the company. 

GoldenTree also traces the dispute back to 2021, when Altice International began advancing funds to its parent, Altice Luxembourg. The advances reached about $5.2 billion by the end of 2024, including accrued noncash interest. The plaintiffs say the parent lacked an operating business that could generate the cash to repay those advances. They allege the group repeatedly extended the maturities, ultimately to December 2029 for the remaining loans, and transferred out the parent’s interests in Altice France and the OXG joint venture. The complaint says the defendants valued the Altice France interest at approximately $6.7 billion.

The plaintiffs challenge two methods the group allegedly used to reduce what the parent owed. First, they say Altice International allowed interest to build up on mandatory convertible notes and used that interest to offset hundreds of millions of dollars of the parent’s obligations. Then, in April and May 2026, Altice International issued approximately €2.055 billion of shares to Altice Luxembourg and immediately canceled them. The plaintiffs say the resulting payment obligation was used to wipe out more than $2.2 billion of the parent’s intercompany debt without Altice International receiving value in return.

A separate claim concerns about $681 million Altice International advanced to Altice UK to buy shares in British Telecom. According to the complaint, Altice UK sold those shares for about $4 billion and kept the proceeds, while its repayment obligation was transferred to Altice Luxembourg. GoldenTree argues that Altice International gave up a claim against an affiliate that had the cash to repay it and took on exposure to a parent whose ability to repay had already been weakened.

The complaint says the 2028 notes fell from about 77 cents to 66 cents on the dollar in the week after Project Déjà Vu was announced, while the 2029 notes fell from about 74 cents to 65 cents. By the time of the complaint, the plaintiffs put first lien debt at roughly 44 cents and second lien notes at roughly 7 cents. The complaint also cites S&P’s December 2025 downgrade from CCC+ to CCC and a cut in its estimated recovery on the senior secured debt to approximately 35% from 60%.

GoldenTree says holders representing more than 25% of the 2028 notes delivered a notice of default to Altice Financing and Deutsche Bank on July 14, 2026, requested enforcement and offered to indemnify the trustee. The complaint alleges the trustee took no action during the following 60 days and that the applicable cure periods expired. GTAM 110 delivered its own default notice on November 10. It also claims the transactions triggered a change of control provision that entitled holders to require Altice Financing to repurchase their notes at 101% of principal plus accrued and unpaid interest. The complaint says the defendants maintain that the subsidiary designations and releases were valid and that no event of default occurred. 

The first related action, brought by ACOF II S.à r.l. and other creditors, was filed on October 13. Sepia Investors Ltd. and other creditors brought a second action on November 5, with MoloLamken LLP as plaintiffs’ counsel. GoldenTree argues that the October plaintiffs are seeking certain recoveries exclusively for themselves despite an indenture provision barring holders from using it to gain priority over other holders. GoldenTree asks that relief restoring transferred value benefit first lien noteholders and lenders generally. It separately seeks damages for injuries it says the two funds suffered directly. 

The 32 count complaint includes contract claims, alleged fraudulent transfers under New York law and claims under Luxembourg law seeking to make the transfers unenforceable against creditors. The funds ask the court to declare the Portuguese and Caribbean designations and guarantee releases invalid, return Altice Caribbean to Altice International or a subsidiary, restore the Altice France and OXG interests or their proceeds to Altice Luxembourg, and reverse the transfer of the Altice UK repayment obligation. They also seek an injunction against further allegedly fraudulent transfers. Alternative remedies include money judgments against recipients of the transfers and first priority liens on their assets. The funds seek damages from Drahi and the directors in amounts to be determined at trial, as well as punitive damages and a constructive trust over value they allege Drahi received or benefited from.

The eight directors named are Dennis Lodewijk Okhuijsen, Emilie Schmitz, Nicolas Stemberger, Malo Corbin, Gerrit Jan Bakker, Alain Kinsch, Claude Faber and Tobias Faber. The complaint alleges that overlapping boards approved transactions for companies on both sides of the transfers and that the group disclosed some of the transactions only after they closed.

Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP represents GoldenTree 2004 Trust and GTAM 110.