This shell company can not own nothing, it have to own the patent(s) in question.
Does it? IANAL but I believe it's possible to license the rights associated with a patent without transferring complete ownership. The shell organization would be a sub-licensee that does your dirty work.
This is like saying that I have the rights to use the Unity engine, so I should be able to sue Microsoft for parts of Silverlight that I think are infringing and profit personally.
Having a license doesn't mean you can sue. Having a "license to sue" might though! (if it can exist)
In the media-tomb(?name might be wrong, and I know copyright is different) case, the lawsuits were all eventually shut down because the plaintiff, being the 'right to sue' licensee and not the owner, didn't actually have standing or right to sue.
Needless to say, IANAL as well.
But that's kind of a sideshow - I believe the real issue being pointed at is if the defendant chooses to argue that a patent is invalid, and succeeds, then the only award they get is the now-invalidated patent.