Okay. The SEC one has obviously been superseded. I take issue...

Okay. The SEC one has obviously been superseded.
I take issue with your statement that " Neuren cannot develop 2591 in North America without Acadia's approval." If you read clause 6.2 you will see that it defines "new indication" A new indication is when Acadia develops Trofinetide for a condition other than Rett or Fragile X. Once the proposal has gone through the JSC and has been approved, then on the commencement of development, it becomes a "new indication". Once that development has begun, then pursuant to clause 11.c, Neuren must cease any clinical development in that new indication in the Noth Americas ( the "initial territory") That does not mean that Neuren needs Acadia's consent for any development of NNZ2591, only those where the development is in something for which Acadia is developing Trifinetide with the approval of the JSC.
Nor do the provisions of clause 11g impose any such restriction. It basically says that any profits Neuren may make from any sales in the "NNZ2591 field" or from a new indication are to be paid to Acadia. Reference to the "NNZ 2591 field" is defined in the agreement. It "means uses of the NNZ-2591 Compound or any NNZ-2591 Product solely in and for Rett Syndrome and Fragile X Syndrome and excludes any and all uses in and for any other indication." So again, the only restriction is against competing with Acadia with NNZ-2591 in Rett or Fragile X.
In summary, the consent of Acadia for the development of NNZ-2591 is only needed if it is for a "new indication", i.e. a development of Trofinetide in an indication in which Acadia has obtained the approval of the JCS, or for the sale of NNZ 2591 in Rett or Fragile X