The thing is, the company really never put many "assets" into the public company. The company distributes brands owned by the management and ownership of the public company. It's a very strange set up and IMHO one which makes it easy to move revenues, costs and profits among the private entities and the public company. When the company was reporting, it had very low costs because the major employees weren't being paid through the public company, but through the private ones.
The 200:1 reverse wasn't dilutive, but according to BCInvestor, immediately after that (when O/S was less than 100k), they issued 10 million new shares which was crazily dilutive. Because they are not a reporting company (probably because then they would have had to explain this bizarre transaction), it's impossible to tell who got all those new shares, or even confirm it happened. At the last filing I see, period ended May 2009, they had 12 million shares outstanding and a million shares of preferred, convertible to about 45 million shares of common. After the 200/1 reverse, there should have been about 60,000 shares outstanding. If BC's claim of 10 million outstanding is correct, that's a whopping 99.4% dilution which essentially undid the reverse split, but only for those who got the new shares. If you were a shareholder before with 1% of the company, after these transactions, you now hold roughly .005% of the company.
The bailment process may be wonderful, but between the actual underlying assets in the company and the strange and secretive equity structure, I think you'd be taking a huge risk on this one.
All MHO.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
