To DBA, or not to DBA...

I've noticed that some collection agencies have sub corporations or LLCs setup that are not under the parent company name. Just recently I discovered (due to the help of CajunBulldog) that Bass and assoc. may have another head to that hydra as well as a a company called RSM that is owned by Sherman Acquisitions (also parent company of LVNV funding, Resurgent, etc.) I ask myself why have so many DBA's and some that are not even listed as DBAs, like they don't have any affiliation/ownership? Part of it is a shell game as others have stated, in order to confuse the consumer. You send a DV, they can't validate and they send it to another branch, you think it's a new company, they keep doing it hoping that you'll cave and pay. The other is (my venture here) so that they can have branches that perform the more/most illegal collection tactics (the ones that are successful in these tactics will generate the most revenue) but they also serve as scapegoats. They get in legal trouble, the DBA takes the fall if the consumer just sues the DBA and doesn't have any knowledge of the parent company relationship. Especially true for the companies that have branches that don't have any registered affiliation (where basically it's owned by the company but not listed as a DBA)

Well theres my two cent, I'll jump off my milk crate now.