No. The point of punitive damages is to change the managers' behavior. What you suggest would hurt the stock holders and the customers (let's be real, the cost of a judgement gets passed on to them), neither of which were involved in the misdemeanor.
How much money was "saved" by the illegal collusion? How often would companies expect to get away with such behavior? These two are critical in determining the correct fine. If they can't expect to get away with it, the penalty should be "a little" higher than the money they hoped to "save". If they expect to get away with it 80% of the time, then it needs to be 5X that amount, to ensure the costs outweigh the benefits.
I understand the anger over such behavior, but letting that anger drive a legal response would have unintended consequences. We should carefully consider a punishment to only harm those deserving of that punishment.