Doesn’t that limited control though simply rely on disunity of direction amongst the other shareholders? While that’s certainly a factor in some companies it isn’t universal, and I’d be convinced that, in the face of increased focus on employment rights and long-term rather than short-term strategic investment, the passive shareholders would become active to protect their investments.
On the banking I’d imagine the public at-large might not take greatly to the idea of expending more resources for the benefit of bankers and their dependants in high finance. Surely it would be more effective simply to establish a new public controlled bank than can then absorb the assets of the old banks.