Company: NCEL
Filing Date: 2025-09-03
Form Type: F-4/A
Source: 0001213900-25-084157
Chunk: 786

Company: NewcelX Ltd.
Filing Date: 2025-09-03
Form: F-4/A
Chunk 786
---
 to regulatory filings, regulatory approvals and the commercialization of Nolazol. The achievement and timing of the milestones depended on the success of development, approval and sales progress, if any, of Nolazol in the future. In addition, the Company was also eligible for tiered royalty payments. The Company identified the licenses granted to Eurofarma and its obligation to advance development activities with respect to Nolazol in the United States as the material promises under the EF License Agreement. For purposes of identifying the Company’s performance obligations under the EF License Agreement, management believed that while the exclusive licenses were granted to Eurofarma at the outset of the EF License Agreement, the grant of those licenses did not singularly result in the transfer of the Company’s broader obligation to Eurofarma under the EF License Agreement.

Annex F-17 NLS PHARMACEUTICS LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The Company was obligated under the EF License Agreement to advance its development activities in the United States and those activities preceded Eurofarma’s necessary regulatory approvals for commercialization of Nolazol, in Latin American countries. The Company intended to apply its proprietary know -howto the ongoing development activities in the United States involving its intellectual property relating to Nolazol. These development activities were specific to the Company and the Company believed they were not capable of being distinct in the context of the EF License Agreement on the whole. The licenses provided to Eurofarma were not transferable and without the right to sublicense therefore Eurofarma was not presently able to monetize its investment in Nolazol as clinical development in the United States or any Latin American countries had yet to be completed and Eurofarma had yet to seek or obtain regulatory approval in any Latin American country. The licenses to Eurofarma represented rights to use the Company’s intellectual property with respect to Nolazol for which revenue was recognized at a point in time which was when Eurofarma was able to use and benefit from the licenses. The licenses were considered of limited value without the Company’s development activities with respect to Nolazol in the United States. As such, the licenses were not capable of being distinct until after successful clinal development and regulatory approval and alone did not have standalone functionality to Eurofarma. Management had determined that the licenses, while capable of being distinct, were not distinct as they did not have stand -alonevalue to Eurofarma without the Company’s planned development activities in