Yep. In the article UA said they were terminating based on a clause that allowed them to if UCLA didn't meet certain criteria on their side. UCLA's response was kind of odd, and didn't really contradict that point - mostly playing the PR side.
No specifics given, and who's on solid legal ground is not something most folks could say who haven't specifically seen this contract.
From pure inference, it'd seem like UA has a case they feel pretty confident about in the courts, and UCLA probably thinks so as well, which is why they responded like they did. As to how this hurts UA, my guess would be that it somewhat depends on if it's boilerplate language and UA is trying to jump ship because UCLA has sucked, or if it was something specific to the UCLA deal. Either way, university attorneys will probably be reviewing these contracts even more closely going forward.