While this sort of behavior is very bad indeed, I would point out that calling this journal "Respected" is a substantial exaggeration.
At least for the last few years (I only looked at data for 2009 onwards) its metrics hovered near the bottom of those for the field. For example, the 800-pound-gorilla of journal metrics, who shall not be named, ranked them 111th out of 125 Cardiology/Cardiovascular journals in 2013. That's before the sale.
Publishing there was already just slightly better for your promotion dossier than peeing on the Dean's lawn in a powder-blue tuxedo at breakfast time on a Sunday. Although at least before the sale, you probably had to spell your title correctly.
I bring this up because, if we want to fight this sort of fake journal disease, we have to recognize what kind of journals it is likely to happen to. I suspect (citation needed!!!) that mostly this sort of practice occurs with journals that are already a waste of bandwidth, which makes the slide into toxicity easier.