Optimum Execs Rewarded $2M as Legal Clash Over Credit Cartel Intensifies

Optimum Communications Executive Bonuses and Credit Dispute

Three top executives of Optimum Communications Inc., formerly known as Altice USA, have been awarded nearly $2 million in special cash bonuses to recognize their role in raising capital for the company. The bonuses were announced following a lawsuit filed by Optimum against its largest creditors, who are accused of restricting the company's access to credit markets. The decision to grant the bonuses was made by the board's compensation committee just days after the filing.

The top executives received the bonuses for their involvement in capital raising activities. Dennis Mathew, the chairman and CEO, received $750,000, while CFO Marc Sirota and General Counsel Michael Olsen each received $600,000 according to reports. The company cited "extraordinary contributions" to justify the payouts.

The awards have drawn attention amid a broader legal dispute between Optimum and a group of creditors, including Apollo Capital Management, Ares Management, and BlackRock. These creditors signed a cooperation agreement, which Optimum claims acts as a cartel and blocks individual negotiations for refinancing or new financing unless approved by two-thirds of the group.

Why the Standoff Happened

Optimum claims that the cooperation agreement among its creditors has effectively locked it out of the credit market, forcing it to either accept less favorable terms or risk financial instability. The agreement prevents creditors from dealing with Optimum without group approval, which the company argues is an illegal restraint on trade under antitrust laws.

According to the company's filing, the agreement was signed in July 2024, and it covers nearly all of Optimum's creditors. The steering committee, composed of major creditors, is said to control over $16 trillion in assets and dominates the US leveraged-finance market. Optimum alleges that this dominance allows the group to dictate terms without competition, pushing the company into a "Hobson's choice" of either amending its debt agreements or facing capital starvation.

Optimum's legal team argues that the cooperation agreement violates the Sherman Act by creating an illegal cartel. The company is seeking treble damages and aims to set a precedent that such agreements are per se unlawful. The case is being handled in the Southern District of New York, with Judge Jeannette Vargas overseeing the proceedings.

How Markets Reacted

Optimum's legal action and executive bonuses have raised questions about the broader implications for corporate finance and antitrust law. The company has already taken steps to counteract the effects of the cooperation agreement, including repaying a $1 billion loan two years early. This move has positioned Optimum to pursue alternative financing options, even if those options come with higher costs and stricter terms.

In July 2025, Optimum secured a $1 billion asset-backed private loan through a subsidiary. The company claims it had to pay 200 basis points more than market rates due to the limited pool of potential lenders caused by the cooperation agreement. This has added to the financial strain and highlighted the challenges faced by borrowers in leveraged markets where a few large creditors control the flow of capital.

The legal battle is not unique. Similar lawsuits are being filed by other borrowers challenging cooperation agreements among creditors. For example, a Dutch company, Selecta Group, is also suing its creditors under antitrust laws over a similar cooperative agreement. These cases could shape the future of debt restructuring and lending practices.

Risks to the Outlook

The outcome of the lawsuit could have far-reaching consequences for both borrowers and creditors. If Optimum prevails, it could set a legal precedent that cooperation agreements among creditors are per se illegal, which would significantly alter the risk-reward dynamics for lenders. This could lead to increased litigation and uncertainty in the leveraged-finance market.

On the other hand, if the court sides with the creditors, it would reinforce the legal right to form such agreements, potentially leading to more widespread use of similar strategies to protect investments from aggressive debt management tactics like liability management exercises (LMEs) according to lenders. Lenders argue that these agreements help prevent losses by ensuring that all creditors benefit equally from any refinancing or restructuring efforts.

The stakes for Optimum remain high. The company is under pressure to manage its debt while maintaining liquidity. The lawsuit is expected to be lengthy, with expert testimony on market impacts and antitrust implications playing a key role in the final decision. The outcome could reshape the legal landscape for debt negotiations in the years to come.

What This Means for Investors

Investors following the case should monitor developments closely, as the ruling could affect how companies raise capital and how creditors negotiate terms. If cooperation agreements are found to be illegal, it could lead to more competitive lending and improved access to capital for borrowers, especially in leveraged markets. However, it could also increase the risk of costly litigation and make it harder for creditors to protect their interests in restructuring scenarios.

For now, the legal battle continues, with Optimum's executives having already been rewarded for their role in navigating the complex capital-raising environment. The company's aggressive stance highlights the growing tensions in corporate finance and the potential for broader regulatory or legal changes in the near future.