What's going on here is Stevens, et al, have created what is commonly known as a "shell corporation".
A "shell" may well have a legitimate purpose ~ e.g. to take temporary control of a building between owners so that contracts for management, maintenance, etc. can be continued without interruption, and on behalf of the tenants.
On the other hand a "shell" might have a less than legitimate purpose. For example, you might have a company set up a "shell" corporation to serve as a foil against adverse action. The injured parties might waste a lot of time going after the "shell" not being aware that a very real entity with vast resources is the responsible party.
Or, as seems to have been done here, a "shell" has been set up to sue other people for the purpose of "suing other people" and "collecting unearned remuneration from other people".
If Righthaven has NO ASSETS and is suing folks with a false claim that its assets were harmed (to wit, someone made copies) the owners of the "shell" can actually be prosecuted under any number of laws regulating fraud ~ uh, those are the criminal statutes!
Then, there's the whole law of conversion deal, and I'm sure there are lawyers who could figure out just all sorts of things to do ~ and Stevens' interests are definitely in trouble if conversion can be demonstrated ~ which I think it can.
I once had to handle a case where a book publisher had created a shell corporation that sold only books that qualified for the special nonprofit rates of postage. So I wrote a ruling that used everything but the word "shell" in it. I don't recall, but I don't think I used the term "corporation" either.
It was enough to shut the operation down, but the lawyer for the publisher APPEALED and he used the word "shell" ~ which I hadn't ~ demonstrating that my language regarding the fraudulent deal used to improperly qualify for lower postage rates was sufficient to win in federal court!
He was one mad little wet kitten!
I hear lawyers licking their lips over this one.