What you write makes sense, or is at least reasonable to a point where I can believe that people genuinely think so.

But my question is then, why the company did not argue that they need to fire these 22 000 workers without resorting to shady methods?

"Company executives thought they needed to get rid of 22,000 workers out of 130,000 — a necessity contested by the prosecution — to ensure survival."

Was there some additional cost to triggering mechanism you describe?