- Patrick Drahi has shifted parts of his Altice telecommunications empire out of the reach of existing lenders in aggressive restructuring moves.
- Debt investors have seen bond prices plunge as collateral shrinks, prompting fresh debate over creditor protections and financial strategy in highly leveraged telecom groups.
What happened: Asset repositioning accelerates as debt stress deepens
In the past 14 months, billionaire Patrick Drahi has executed a series of high-stakes financial manoeuvres across his €60 billion-plus leveraged Altice telecommunications empire, moving assets worth billions of euros out of entities that served as collateral for creditors.
According to recently filed accounts, Drahi’s restructuring stripped €4.5 billion of assets out of Altice Luxembourg and then another €5 billion from Altice International, reducing the collateral base available to more than €8 billion of lenders. Key subsidiaries such as Altice Portugal and the Dominican Republic unit were redesignated as “unrestricted”, meaning they are no longer bound by existing credit agreements and can incur debt or pay dividends without creditor consent.
The moves saw Altice International’s bonds tumble sharply, with some junior debt trading as low as about a quarter of face value. In parallel, Drahi has been negotiating asset sales and debt restructurings, including potential deals for French operator SFR and other units.
Also Read: Altice France rejects $18B takeover offer for SFR
Also Read: Altice explores sale of OXG Glasfaser stake despite Vodafone’s confidence in fibre network
Why it’s important
Drahi’s actions highlight the tensions inherent in heavily indebted telecom groups navigating a high-interest environment. As borrowing costs have risen, the value of collateral backing large debt stacks has become critical; stripping those assets away can leave creditors with little recourse.
For the broader credit markets, such asset repositioning raises questions about creditor rights and the resilience of debt covenants when confronted with complex corporate structures. A financial commentator noted that such tactics could weaken investor confidence, especially where legal protections are limited.
