"Chris I supplied you the answer. All the other data you added...

"Chris I supplied you the answer. All the other data you added is post 25Jan when Biohealth wasnt announced. So I am not sure how that applies to a simple question you asked me."

Hi Neil - you did supply the answer, but hiding it in the bottom of a long "re-post", i didn't notice it at first. You stated in the top of the post, it was to remove the advertising. So please do not take offense, i didn't know i should be checking your re-posts for your reply.

The data is post 25th of Jan. A very accurate observation.
Your link to the 25th did answer my simple question very succinctly, and for that i thank you.

After perusing that link, i noted that the ASX approval, was a CONDITIONAL approval. So semantically, yes, you are correct that they were "approved" for re-listing. But the company, not shareholders, DID NOT MEET THE CONDITIONS.
This is shown through the numerous announcements following,

On the 25th of January, CGB extended the offers to allow additional time for settlement of the transactions.
https://newswire.iguana2.com/af5f4d73c1a54a33/cgb.asx/6A917418/CGB_Supplementary_Prospectus

On the 8th of February CGB restructured its deal with Medcan, necessitating a further extension.
https://newswire.iguana2.com/af5f4d73c1a54a33/cgb.asx/6A919434/CGB_Supplementary_Prospectus


Additionally in your post it was asserted that the results of the investigation were announced on 15th of May, including an extra EGM to be called.

This is erroneous, as it can clearly be seen that CGB were aware they needed to call an EGM, as early as 21st of February per their announcement.



On the 21st of February, CGB now announced they need to re-seek approval, due to the restructured transaction. the 6 week delay is primarily for the calling of an EGM....
https://newswire.iguana2.com/af5f4d73c1a54a33/cgb.asx/6A920915/CGB_Supplementary_Prospectus