Firing a company's boss and appointing a trustee is uncommon, but it happens.
E.g. at IT service provider Centric, where the majority owner and CEO had a mental breakdown. Employees suffered from his delusions, but it also threatened to affect customers. The trustees aren't government agents, they just run the business as a going concern, minus the mismanagement (in this case, minus the mental illness).
US law also provides for a CEO to be ousted and a trustee to be appointed in cases of mismanagement or fraud.
I wouldn't call that taking control, in much the same way as bankruptcy proceedings appointing a trustee don't amount to government taking control.
Now, the article refers to a filing made by former management. That filing is conflating the order and the firing of the CEO. The ministerial order didn't fire the CEO, that was a separate action filed by the company's works council and happened before the order was issued. The reason for the firing lies mostly in mismanagement and conflicts of interest.
The ministerial order is much more limited in scope, allowing the government to roll back decisions detrimental to the company - especially transfers of assets.
It's a shame that CNBC is just parroting the former management's objections, rather than you know, doing any reporting.
In both the order and the legal case, it's clear the ownership/management wanted to shut down the company and take the assets. The company was also not doing OK financially, and this kind of thing reeks of bankruptcy fraud (i.e. fraudulent conveyance).
The kind of tech nexperia makes isn't rocket science but I could imagine they produce some chips that are used in essential supply chains. So rather than wait for the bankruptcy and the fraud to happen, the company was restricted from transferring assets.
So the wording "takes control" is misleading.
"subjected to additional oversight" is perhaps too wordy but more accurate.
"put on a leash" might be a good way of putting it.