When Product-Market Fit Is Not Enough: Restructuring and Special Situations M&A in Technology

By 2024–2025, financial distress across the technology sector is rarely a question of relevance. Many software, data, and infrastructure platforms retain strong products, embedded customers, and defensible competitive positions. What has changed is the capital environment surrounding them. Assumptions formed during the zero-rate era about growth velocity, funding availability, and exit timing have collided with slower sales cycles, more selective buyers, and a structurally higher cost of capital. As a result, technically viable businesses are increasingly entering special situations not because their products fail, but because their capital structures no longer support independence.

‍

For boards and creditors, the surprise is often one of timing rather than fundamentals. Burn rates that once appeared manageable now compress strategic flexibility. ARR growth that still exists no longer offsets customer concentration risk, churn sensitivity, or delayed monetization. In this setting, restructuring in technology has shifted from balance sheet repair toward a forced reconsideration of ownership and exit pathways. In special situations, M&A becomes less about saving companies and more about determining which outcome remains financeable before liquidity dictates terms.

‍

Underwriting in technology special situations has moved decisively away from top-line narratives and toward the durability of cash conversion. Buyers and creditors now anchor diligence on net revenue retention versus gross churn, sales efficiency and payback periods under elongated buying cycles, customer concentration and contract enforceability, rigidity of infrastructure and hosting costs, and true free cash flow after growth normalization. What no longer clears investment committees is the assumption that growth will reaccelerate quickly enough to resolve capital pressure. In 2024–2025, buyers typically assume moderated growth as a base case and price transactions around survivability rather than upside.

‍

The value logic in technology restructurings is therefore not turned around through innovation. It is the preservation of exit optionality under constraint. Value is created by reducing cash burn to widen strategic timelines, narrowing product scope to clearly monetizable use cases, transferring ownership to buyers with a lower cost of capital, and resetting governance to prioritize liquidity and control over expansion. A fragile assumption that often breaks is independence itself. Many platforms discover too late that remaining standalone has become an expensive strategic choice. In special situations, value accrues to stakeholders who preserve multiple exit paths for as long as possible, rather than committing prematurely to a single outcome.

‍

Execution failures in restructuring-led technology transactions follow consistent patterns. Management teams delay scope reduction, avoiding product rationalization and headcount decisions until liquidity is nearly exhausted. Boards overestimate strategic buyer appetite, assuming acquirers will step in once uncertainty clears, only to find that buyers prefer earlier entry points or lower prices. Prolonged restructuring erodes customer confidence, increasing churn precisely when stability is most critical. Bridge financings drift without a clear exit plan, postponing ownership decisions rather than clarifying them. In most failed cases, the technology remains sound; the sequencing of exits does not.

‍

Capital markets dynamics now dominate outcomes in technology special situations. Public equity markets reward profitability and discipline rather than promise, leaving limited room for growth narratives. Growth equity has retrenched materially, while private credit is available only where cash flow visibility and governance control are already present. New capital is therefore structured as bridge-to-exit rather than bridge-to-scale. Valuations reset around downside protection rather than total addressable market arguments, and minority investments increasingly embed control features that reshape governance in practice. From a capital markets advisory perspective, restructurings that do not explicitly map to a viable exit path struggle to attract durable capital support.

‍

Transaction structures have evolved to reflect this reality. Special situations M&A in technology increasingly favors majority recapitalizations that reset governance and burn profiles, strategic carve-outs of core IP or customer bases, customer- or partner-led acquisitions that internalize platform risk, and orderly wind-downs with asset sales once optionality collapses. These structures trade independence for certainty, an exchange that often becomes rational once funding assumptions reset and time works against standalone recovery.

‍

Boards and investors frequently misjudge technology distress by over-weighting product strength and under-weighting capital endurance. Technical advantage does not offset liquidity constraints indefinitely. Common errors include assuming buyers will pay for potential late in the process, treating restructuring as temporary rather than directional, and delaying exit decisions to preserve valuation optics that no longer govern outcomes. More disciplined boards focus instead on which exits remain achievable under current capital conditions and how long those options can realistically be kept open.

‍

In technology, restructuring is not a pause before M&A. It is the mechanism through which M&A becomes inevitable. The transactions that preserve value are those that accept early that ownership must align with cash flow reality rather than product ambition. For boards and investors navigating special situations in 2024–2025, the strategic question is not whether the technology works. It is whether the capital structure preserves enough optionality to choose the right exit before liquidity removes that choice altogether.