The holding requirements are contractual, not criminal - there's no law requiring him to hold stock.
The minimum he's required to hold is still more than $10M tied up in a single stock. Wanting to diversify one's assets past that level is understandable.
You missed the point, it implies criminal if he sold down differently this time. The contractual details are only important in so far as they dictate his behavior.
it shows the concerned trade is not a part of the regular trades, the portion sold in that batch was significantly different to the extent that he couldn't sell any more when also retaining is position in Intel. In short, he used inside information to minimise his exposure to the risks.
The minimum he's required to hold is still more than $10M tied up in a single stock. Wanting to diversify one's assets past that level is understandable.