I think part of the question is: why try so hard to save the company at all? If 90% of the people working there ends up out on the street anyway, what's so special about the company itself that warrants showering money on the remaining 10% to try to keep it afloat? Why not let it fail, and those 50 people -- if they really are so high-performing -- will quickly find jobs with other firms. Some of them might even opt to start a new business instead of finding a new gig, taking with them knowledge and potential customers.
Instead of using the last of the money to keep the 10% around on a hail-mary, spread that money around to 100% of the company so their crash landing is a little softer.
Instead of using the last of the money to keep the 10% around on a hail-mary, spread that money around to 100% of the company so their crash landing is a little softer.