Sorry, but if you think this through, it's not even remotely logical.
Even in the case of a smaller company, operating according to how joint stock companies are theoretically supposed to operate, this would generally not be legal. The board and officers have a fiduciary responsibility to all the shareholders, and they are not supposed to do something that benefits one shareholders other interests while costing the others through inefficiency.
In a system where all investors where roughly equal, the loss from cheating company the one company should roughly equal the benefit of the other, and crime would not happen often.
Even if you held a controlling stake, the other shareholders might accuse you of having a conflict of interest, and funneling funds to your private coffers.
Forcing is usually a bad idea in relationships; private and professional.
Owning shares has no direct influence as far as I can tell. Of course, owning a lot of the company might give you a voice they'll listen to.
Situation A: You own 10% of a company, and so does Joe Schmoe. You tell the company to do business with Anvil Corp. Joe Schmoe tells the company not to do business with Anvil Corp. Who wins?
Situation B: You own 51% of a company. You tell it to do business with Anvil Corp. The other 49% says no. Who wins?
I say this is outside of the realm of my knowledge because I'm no sure about Situation B (I mean, I could see you still not winning in that situation given your conflict of interest; it sounds like a question of corporate governance).
Taken to the extreme, one could buy one share of stock in a company and force it into transactions with another; since this would be hugely beneficial to that person, and since I don't see it happening in reality, I conclude that it's not how things work.
Purely speculating here in order to give you things to think about, since there were no comments; sorry if I'm totally wrong.
1. Find a company with $100 million in assets
2. Buy 51% of that company for, say, $60 million
3. Force the company to pay $100 million for, say, a nicely framed copy of my autograph.
The company dissolves, I pocket my $40 million, and the other 49% shareholders get annoyed. I assume this is why there are various complicated laws governing what companies can actually do, and why they're obliged to work on maximising shareholder returns rather than anything else.
In answer to the original question, though: No, of course you can't, what on Earth made you think you could?
The only protection that shareholders get is the market itself. If someone wants to perform a hostile takeover on a firm that's selling below book value, and the shareholders believe that the firm is worth more as a going concern, they should be able to convince a deep-pocketed investor to come in as a competing bidder and buy the remaining shares instead. Such an investor is called a "white knight" - examples include Kirk Kerkorian for GM or Warren Buffett for Salomon Brothers.
If the firm is not worth more as a going concern than under liquidation, it behooves the shareholders to see it liquidated.
(And in your particular example, where they pay $100M for an autograph instead of liquidating and returning the money to shareholders, that just invites a shareholder lawsuit for breach of fiduciary duty...)
I'm just saying that even if it were that simple, well, you'd still have to own 51%.
BUT: Then you run into the maximizing shareholder value legislation -- which we normally put up as why big companies screw you over -- but are in place to prevent abuses like this.
To gain decision control of a public company the OP will need to conduct a hostile takeover and probably take it private. Better get your checkbook out.