You point makes no sense. It is precisely because 10% were going to be let go that you don't take the bonus. The company was obviously in trouble. From a business perspective only, it was not a good move.
You are honestly telling me that if you were on the board of directors, knew the company was in serious enough trouble that it had to lay off 10% of the workforce that you will award a $120 million bonus. I would have been pounding my hand on the table and saying, are you nuts!
I must be missing something here. Maybe it is just election time and you are so busy cheerleading you are willing to make excuses for anything.
My point is that the 10% were not laid off so that they could give her the bonus, which is what the ad seems to say to some people.
However, this argument seems to be irrelevant since we now know that the 10% were let go AFTER she had left the company.