You could make a strong argument they did. Next and Apple is often cited as a case where the bought company took over the buyer.
The Disney/Pixar deal might count as well. After a falling-out between the companies due in large part to Disney wanting more creative control, Disney eventually caved and "bought" Pixar in an all-stock deal, with top people from Pixar being put in charge of Disney's animation division and the majority shareholder of Pixar becoming by far the largest single Disney shareholder--more than the next five largest combined, if memory serves me.
(Extra credit: Guess who the aforementioned shareholder is.)
I did hesitate when I wrote that, knowing that modern Apple's DNA is pretty much pure Next. The history of the Next doesn't lend much to the theory that Steve's presence is all you need to make a successful company though.
It's a tricky argument though, he really is such a remarkable CEO it's hard to say he's not proof of the great man theory! I just can't think of anyone else whose great man status can't be plausibly explained by survivorship bias.
Give me a break. Next was in the negative when Apple acquired it (Next was bought for $350 million + Apple agreed to cover Next's $50 million in debt). Moreover Apple was planning to buy Jean-Louise Gasse's Be (creators of the BeOS) first. Only after Be demanded more money than Apple was willing to pay did they then go to Next.
Also remember, Next failed to even get an IPO off the ground. They tried but interest was so low that it was cancelled.
Jobs maneuvered Gil Amelio out like a pro but that's an example of office politics not a statement on the value of Next.
You could make a strong argument they did. Next and Apple is often cited as a case where the bought company took over the buyer.
Netscape and Collabra is another, less successful, and recently modish example.
(not a fan of the great man theory in general though)