Not just similarities, you can find direct connections. In Japan, the clans were converted to noble families in the Meiji Restoration. (Please see my post on this subject here: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/22ve03/do_the_descendants_of_the_major_japanese_clans/cgqwcaw)
Many families transitioned directly into corporations or corporate groups called zaibatsu. Examples include the Mitsui, the Sumitomo, and the Konoike.
The Sumitomo trace their lineage to Emperor Kanmu, for example. They are still a massive corporate group, owning companies like Mazda and NEC.
Mitsui is still one of the world's largest corporate groups, though after the dissolution of the zaibatsu following WWII, the original family hit hard times, and essentially "rented out" their name to the corporation that bears their name. According to Mitsui heirs, though, the corporation maintains a much more traditional corporate structure (paralleling the daimyo/han system) than corporations like Mitsubishi which have more modern origins (though it's important to note the head of Mitsubishi was ennobled around 1896). They own Toshiba and Japan Steel Works, and have ties to Sony and Yamaha.
The Shimazu were a famous clan during the Edo period, who were instrumental in the Meiji Restoration. They got heavily into investments, and lost massively in a bank panic in 1927. There is a Shimadzu Corporation that uses their clan mon, but the connection is not direct. It is named after a non-related guy that was given permission to use the name.
I highly recommend Lebra's Above the Clouds about the modern history of Japanese nobility.
No.
Avoiding the usual debate over "feudal systems," a modern corporate set up is closer (if it's close to anything) to a bureaucratic state than it is to a hereditary nobility system.
The reason is because the key component difference of a corporation/state is the concept of non-hereditary "office," which is a position that retains its power regardless of the person holding it, and regardless of their lineage descent. Lineage obviously helps influence (see Bush and Dubya, or Ford and Ford Jr.) who gets the office, but it does not structure the entire office itself.
Nobility/monarchies depend upon descent lineage to hold power. In particular societies (be they medieval kingdoms or tribal chiefdoms), barring extreme circumstances, the "office" is imbued in that person so long as s/he's around. When that person dies it passes to the next in line in the family.
This has consequences for "who can be involved" in a governing structure, patterns of loyalty and access to resources.
Hereditary systems structure themselves around families, so only those with "noble blood" can participate in government. It keeps the number of potential political opponents low, but it also keeps the disloyalty high toward the chief office, because alternate options for patronage are available within a family, and away from the top political position, who may be outside the lineage.
Contrast this with non-hereditary "office" states. Because now "anyone" can be involved in the governing structure, for people without lineage influence, access to power requires the direct patronage of the most powerful individual they can obtain access to. In these structures, it tends to be the leader himself, which means there is a high degree of direct loyalty between individual and patron, skipping over family ties.
This is also why centralized states tend to be more receptive to "coups" whereas hereditary nobilities are better at "rebellions." Because each individual's power in a centralized state is tied to the direct loyalty of their superior in the bureaucratic chain of command, a change at the very top does not change their patterns of direct supervisor loyalty. That's why coups focus on these "fulcrums" of loyalty, where a political player at a point of crisis has the most agency to decide outcome.
Contrast this with hereditary setups. If a change at the top is not one those further down approve of, an alternate governing set up is available right there within their family for them to replicate a separate political entity.
This is made possible because of the difference in access to resources between office societies and hereditary societies. Because an office state can be so centralized, so too are its resources, which tend to flow to the leader first, and then are redistributed downward. Rebellions can be nipped in the bud by denying access to those resources.
A good example of this would be, Caesar was able to rebel against the Senate with his army because the soldiers were primarily paid in the booty only Caesar could deliver through battle. Contrast this with the ability of an American general to rebel in Afghanistan to set up a separate state (lets presume the soldiers are very loyal to him). All the U.S. has to do is cut off their payment, and its highly unlikely those soldiers will be able to replicate the level and quality of their access to pay and resources in Afghanistan.
Though hereditary structures "can" be centralized, I would posit that the more centralized they become, the less hereditary they actually are, and the closer they become to a state. The ability to replicate political structures at a lower level is directly tied to the localization of resource access. The less this exists, the more centralized and "state" like (i.e. non-hereditary office like) the society becomes.
Bringing it back to your original question, this is why corporations are not like "feudal systems" at all. Because of the centralized, non-hereditary office nature of a corporation, loyalty is to direct patron over family, and a corporation can not independent break up into smaller component parts without the express wish of its leadership. Its resource distribution pattern, like that of an office state, flow to the top, and can be cut off at any time to dissenters. It CAN however be subject to coup, which is what corporate takeovers are, precisely because of its office holding structure.
That said, I presume the reason why you want to suggest similarity between feudal systems and modern day corporations is because you want to imply that wage slavery = serfdom.
Well, that's a separate conversation to which I'll briefly state, NO, there is no such comparison, except at the most absurd of levels so as to make anything comparable (e.g. EA is literally Hitler).
tl;dr - No.
Source: