The article from May 14 is EXTREMELY one-sided, ignoring key elements that would favor SIGA (such as the "non-binding agreement" at the bottom of each page of the pre-merger agreement).
that was a legendary footer printed on the paper they wrote on, which didn't mean anything. If Lats had been not binding, there would have to be such wording in the signed agreement. That's the reason why it was ignored by the judge. If pip had used the footer as an argument to back out of Lats when the drug had failed, pip would have lost in their case too for the same reason. Besides, the subsequent negotiation on merger and licence further supported the binding force of LATS. I think Supreme made that very clear.