One assumes that if anyone had asked legal they would have been told they must switch off auto-delete. Lawyers aren't stupid they value their licence far more than their current job. I am highly doubtful there would be any written advice that said anything other than, if in doubt save.
Eh, utterly impractical but I still think there should be a way to "jail" corporations. Easy - "Your offices are closed for the duration of the sentence. Your systems are shut down for the duration. Automatic payments set up in advance can continue as long as there are funds in your bank accounts, but your staff will not be monitoring them. You can appoint someone external to the organization to take care of some obligations."
Survivable as a business for short enough sentences (effectively comparable to a devastating ransomware attack), but mighty painful and anyone involved will absolutely feel the wrath of ownership/shareholders.
Have the top officers who remain put their division on the auction block to the highest bidder, on a sold twice system, best deal wins. That is the company as a whole is sold, in parallel all divisions are sold separately: then add up the different bids, and whoever paid more: whole company vs all the individual departments separate wins. Although there are conflicts of interests, I think the officers who remain should both be allowed to bid, and also consult to other bidders: but the consults must be in public as are their bids.
Shareholders are treated as if the company is bankrupt: government fines, remaining employees, banks, and then the lawyers all get paid. If there is money left over shareholders get it.
I want people that dictate that a company does evil to pay the same price as if they were doing the same thing without the corporate shield. If felons lose the right to vote and are prevented from other rights afforded to other citizens, then corporate felons should also lose rights like never being able to lead a company, pay fines, as well as possibly being a guest of the state.
A default judgement in favor of the government on the underlying antitrust case would be far more effective, and is actually a potential (though extreme) remedy (requiring neither indictment, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or involvement of a jury) if willful failure to preserve evidence is found.