Scheint zumindest im richtigen Kontext zu funktionieren, ja. Siehe z.B. hier:
"The Nestlé/Alcon deal is complicated: prior to 2008, Nestlé S.A. owned 77% of Alcon, Inc. and Alcon’s public shareholders owned the remaining 23%."
"...to pursue a take-private, the opportunity has to be much more attractive than an equivalent private company, because there are so many obstacles associated with the public offer process, e.g.
the difficulty of communicating problems found in diligence to public shareholders making negotiations highly challenging;"
"Elon Musk had better have the money lined up to take Tesla private or he could be in serious trouble with regulators.
If it turns out his Twitter promise - that he has secured the tens of billions of dollars he would need to buy out public shareholders - is in any way shaky, then he could find himself accused of price manipulation."
Gemeint sind in diesen Beispielen jeweils die Streubesitzer, und das würde dann passen.