Well Kakoii, the part I found of most interest to me was the...

Well Kakoii, the part I found of most interest to me was the 'Investigating Account's Report' starting on page 36.

In short, there was considered support for the prospectus. However it feel short of an audited response. I post sections below for highlights...

Our review has been conducted in accordance with Australian Auditing Standard ASRE
2400 Review of Financial Report Performed by an Assurance Practitioner Who is Not the
Auditor of the Entity. We have performed review procedures, which in our professional
judgement are considered reasonable in the circumstances, including:
(a) analytical review of the Historical Financial Information;
(b) review of work papers, accounting records and other documents pertaining to
balances in existence at 31 December 2009;
(c) review of the Pro-Forma Adjustments and assumptions used to compile the Pro-
Forma Statement of Financial Position;
(d) review of the consistency in application of the recognition and measurement
principles in Accounting Standards and other mandatory professional reporting
requirements in Australia, and the accounting policies adopted by Biosignal and
RGM Group; and
(e) enquiry and discussions with Directors, management and personnel of Biosignal
and RGM Group.
- 39 -
These procedures do not provide all the evidence that would be required in an audit,
thus the level of assurance provided is less than that given in an audit. We have not
performed an audit, and accordingly, we do not express an audit opinion on the Pro-
Forma Financial Information.
Our review was limited primarily to an examination of the Historical Financial Information,
the Pro-Forma Financial Information, analytical review procedures and discussions with
both management and Directors. A review of this nature provides less assurance than
an audit, and accordingly, this Report does not express an audit opinion on the Pro-
Forma Financial Information included in this Report or elsewhere in the Prospectus.
6.5. Conclusion
Based on our review, which is not an audit, nothing has come to our attention that
causes us to believe that:
(a) the Pro-forma Adjustments do not provide a reasonable basis for the preparation
of the Pro-Forma Financial Information;
(b) the following items do not present fairly in accordance with the recognition and
measurement requirements, but not all of the disclosure requirements of
applicable Accounting Standards and other mandatory professional reporting
requirements in Australia:
(i) the Historical Consolidated Statement of Financial Position of Biosignal as
at 31 December 2009;
(ii) the Historical Consolidated Statement of Financial Position of RGM Group
as at 31 December 2009;
(iii) the Pro-Forma Consolidated Statement of Financial Position of Biosignal
as at 31 December 2009, as if the Pro-Forma Adjustments as set out in
Section 7 had occurred; and
(iv) notes to and forming part of the financial information referred to above.

It goes on to say...

6.10. General advice
This Report has been prepared for inclusion in the Prospectus, to provide its readers
with general information only. It does not take account of the objectives, financial
situation, or needs of specific shareholders. It is not intended to take the place of
professional advice and the readers should not make specific investment decisions
solely on the information contained in this Report. Before acting or relying on any
information, the readers should consider whether it is appropriate for their individual
circumstances having regard to their objectives, financial situation and needs.
Yours faithfully
WHK HORWATH CORPORATE FINANCE LIMITED
ASH PATHER
Principal

I would say that we need a qualified appraisal from registered 'Financial Advisors', before making any firm opinion, simply because the appraisal here is not prepared on an auditted basis. However, to me the move is a positive step (from where we were) and I will probably just watch with long term interest when it starts trading again.