Yes there are other ways, but Brooks owning the majority of the shares (thanks jrbogens for the clarification) is one of the cheapest.
There are companies out there, but this is inconsequential for a couple of reasons. Showing you a company would do little to quell the angst underlying the basis for your opinion. Do you really want me to find some?
However, your statement implies cause-and-effect which is a much higher standard to prove. I do not think that to be the case nor do I think that your presumption can be proven.
Even if I found some companies then I suppose we would start the bantering over the meanings of quality.
I have simply taken the contrarian point of view and have offered unbiased statistics in support of that opinion. In short, I have many reasons to believe that Brooks is a strong manager and little proof otherwise.
Whether if Brooks owns 51% or 47% is not really the issue. The point is that some investors are uncomfortable with Brooks being majority owner. I am not.