Business is just about finding alliances you can use to screw others over, and picking yourself up and doing it again when you eventually get screwed yourself.
In practice, this tactic does happen but I wouldn't say it's common enough to call it "routine". If the company is succeeding, it's usually better not to screw other shareholders over because the resulting interpersonal conflicts would risk the company's success, and then everybody is worth off. Similarly, if the company is failing but there's any chance of working with the people involved again, it's better not to screw them over because they won't work with you anymore, and word will likely get around that may hamper your ability to work with other people. It's only when the company itself is failing, or there's ambiguity about whether it's succeeding or failing, that there's an incentive to loot the carcass and screw over everyone else so that you get most of the residual value. But in that case, the company was failing anyway, so you wouldn't have ended up with much regardless.
Interestingly the same pattern applies in a lot of situations, because it falls out of the game theoretical incentives and so any situation with the same incentives tends to give the same result. When things are going good, everybody cooperates, and is happy to take a relatively small part of an expanding pie. When things start going badly, everybody fights over who gets the last slice. Makes me worried for the state of humanity over the next 10-15 years.