When Compliance Survives but Capital Fails: Restructuring and Special Situations M&A in Defense and Government Contracting

In 2024–2025, distress across defense and government contracting is rarely the result of demand erosion or program cancellation. Budget visibility remains elevated, multi-year appropriations continue to support core missions, and geopolitical conditions sustain long-term government spending priorities. Yet a growing subset of contractors, particularly services-heavy platforms and acquisition-built portfolios, are entering special situations driven by capital structure strain, compliance-driven cost rigidity, and delayed cash realization rather than operational weakness.

‍

For boards and creditors, the surprise is not that revenues persist, but that liquidity does not. Government contracting businesses convert revenue to cash through processes shaped by audits, billing reviews, cost allowability, and contract novations that are slow by design and unforgiving of leverage. Working capital can become trapped for extended periods, overwhelming balance sheets structured for smoother cash conversion. In this environment, restructuring is less about fixing the underlying business and more about determining which ownership structures are capable of carrying regulated cash flows through compliance friction without impairing mission execution.

‍

Special situations underwriting in defense and government contracting now begins with a core premise that cash flow is only as reliable as the ability to access it compliantly. Distressed buyers and creditors no longer equate funded backlog with financeable liquidity. Instead, underwriting focuses on backlog quality by contract type and funding status, recompete exposure and customer concentration, audit history and compliance maturity, billing lag and indirect rate risk, and the portability of security clearances and key personnel. In 2024–2025, buyers explicitly price the friction between contract performance and cash receipt as a first-order risk, particularly in over-levered platforms where delays compound quickly and erode covenant headroom.

‍

The value logic in defense restructurings is frequently mischaracterized as a scale or capability thesis. In practice, it is a control and compliance trade. Value is created by transferring ownership to parties with tolerance for regulatory lag, simplifying capital structures to absorb audit and billing delays, ring-fencing high-compliance programs from stressed legacy portfolios, and aligning management incentives to cash realization rather than revenue recognition. The assumption that often breaks is institutional patience. While government agencies prioritize continuity of mission, they do not accelerate payments or relax compliance standards to solve contractor balance sheets. Ownership that cannot fund compliance through stress rapidly loses strategic relevance regardless of technical capability.

‍

Execution failures in defense and government contracting special situations follow consistent patterns. Post-restructuring budgets frequently underestimate the cost and duration of audit remediation, systems upgrades, and compliance personnel retention. Novation processes take longer than modeled, stalling ownership transitions and eroding employee confidence during periods of uncertainty. Backlog is misclassified as credit support despite being unfunded, recompete-exposed, or margin constrained, inflating leverage assumptions. Amendments and waivers delay decisive control outcomes, narrowing the buyer universe and increasing liquidity burn. In most failed cases, the programs themselves were viable, but the capital wrapper could not sustain regulatory sequencing.

‍

Capital market conditions in 2024–2025 amplify these challenges. Higher interest rates increase the cost of carrying receivables-heavy businesses, while lenders have reduced tolerance for prolonged uncertainty around audits, indirect rate negotiations, and novations. Unsecured markets remain effectively closed to contractors facing compliance remediation regardless of revenue visibility. New capital therefore prices as bridge-to-control rather than bridge-to-growth, leverage is underwritten to adverse billing scenarios, and equity cures lose credibility as sponsors reallocate capital toward less regulated sectors. From a capital markets advisory perspective, restructurings that do not front-load control clarity tend to consume liquidity while waiting for approvals that markets will not finance indefinitely.

‍

Transaction structures have evolved accordingly. Special situations M&A in defense and government contracting increasingly relies on approaches that respect regulatory sequencing and approval risk. Pre-negotiated control transfers are aligned with novation processes rather than post-close expectations. Creditor-led recapitalizations are followed by compliant asset sales instead of enterprise-wide recovery attempts. Program-level carve-outs isolate clean, financeable contracts from legacy compliance exposure. Management continuity and clearance preservation provisions are embedded to protect contract performance during ownership transitions. These structures deliberately prioritize certainty of outcome over headline valuation, an exchange that has proven value-preserving once compliance risk dominates the investment thesis.

‍

Boards and creditors often misjudge distress in this sector by over-weighting revenue visibility and under-weighting cash access. In defense and government contracting, compliance is not a cost center but the gating mechanism for liquidity. Common errors include assuming agencies will accelerate payments to support contractor stability, delaying control decisions to preserve sponsor optionality, and treating restructuring as a purely financial exercise when it is fundamentally regulatory in nature. Disciplined boards focus instead on whether ownership is aligned with the ability to fund compliance, audits, and novations through transition without impairing mission delivery.

‍

In defense and government contracting, restructuring is not a prelude to M&A. It is the point at which control becomes unavoidable. The transactions that preserve value are those that accept early that regulatory processes dictate timing and that ownership must be resolved before liquidity is exhausted. For boards and creditors navigating special situations in 2024–2025, the strategic question is not whether the mission will continue. It is whether the capital structure and ownership model can survive the compliance pathway required to keep that mission funded and executed under new control.