Who runs the Show? Are Activist Investors given too much leeway?

News that 'Activist' investor Elliott Management and Arconic settle their longstanding battle should be seen for what it is: a black eye for corporate government. The number of board members handed to Elliott are out of proportion to the stake the firm has in Arconic. Giving investors board seats also creates conflicts of interest - hopes that 'Chinese Walls' work properly may be optimistic. Why create these conflicts when an arms-length relationship would do the job? And what role did the shareholders as a whole play in this 'agreement'? Who consulted them? And can the activist firm be involved in buying and selling the target's shares while negotiations are taking place?
Movers: Arconic and Elliott Settle