But if you are correct and the shares are free trading (or loaned, sold, shorted against) then it is a moot point now as they have already had their effect on the price. I hope you are right and legally or illegally, the Kidd shares have already been absorbed.
why or how would a company provide info in a filing about when or how a former partner would be allowed to sell shares unless it were a result of a specific legal document between the company and the ex-partner?
A company has absolutely no control over when or how an ex-director disposes of shares. Rule 144 offers multiple avenues of public sale. There are also myriad private sale avenues. Most are legal, may are not.
Claiming the company is a fraud because Kidd may or may not be selling shares and may or may not be paying promotional considerations seems slightly off target.
Questions always exist - more so on the BB - and my mind is far from made up on this one. That said, could we all address the issues without spin? The company is not Kidd's keeper.
Market Data 
Markets 
