As far as I know, everything you said is factually incorrect in the majority of cases.
Common stock is a security that represents ownership in a corporation. In a liquidation, common stockholders receive whatever assets remain after creditors, bondholders, and preferred stockholders are paid.
These aren't bold claims, it's literally how stocks work.
The belief of shareholders actually owning the company was just a side-effect of the marketing for shareholder primacy ideology. Even recent finance/management textbooks specifically call this out.
It seems to me that both descriptions are practically accurate. A compromise position is: lawsuits allow shareholders to receive company funds even in a situation where the majority of the (voting) shareholders would not otherwise authorize it. For some companies with dual-class voting structures, this might even be the only way that a common shareholder would ever see a payout.
Common stock is a security that represents ownership in a corporation. In a liquidation, common stockholders receive whatever assets remain after creditors, bondholders, and preferred stockholders are paid.
Do you have a source for these bold claims?