Nasdaq Copenhagen: SHAPE | CVR: DK38322656 | ISIN: DK0061273125

They Sent the Ruling to the Wrong Person

GAME OVER · Day 81

Yesterday the High Court rejected my appeal because — it said — a court had already ruled on Teis’s conflict of interest on 5 May. I had never heard of that ruling. They mailed it to a shareholder’s inbox. And when I asked why, the court wrote back today and said they’ll mail it to him again. My address? They spelled it wrong.

This Company Announcement is issued pursuant to the Nasdaq Copenhagen Rulebook, section 3.1, concerning the Eastern High Court’s order of 1 June 2026 in case B-281-26 and the newly surfaced Insolvency Court order of 5 May 2026 in case SK-524/2026-SHR. The full GAME OVER investigation — 81 episodes — is at substack.wildceo.live.

I went live yesterday still in shock. I hadn’t even posted. I want to walk you through this slowly, the way I did on the stream — because the absurdity only lands when you see the documents side by side. So I’ll show you the documents.

╔═══ 🧭 TL;DR ═══╗

The High Court rejected my appeal in case B-281-26 — but mostly on procedure. The dissolution part belongs in administrative court. That was never the point.

The point was the conflict of interest — that Teis should never have been appointed. On that, the High Court said it couldn’t rule, because the Maritime Court had already decided it, by an order dated 5 May 2026.

I had never seen that order. The Maritime Court ruled — closed session, no one summoned — that Teis is fit to stay, then mailed it only to Bo, a shareholder, via his e-Boks.

Their logic for keeping Teis: he was a “good” trustee because creditors picked him — in the bankruptcy the High Court already declared unlawful.

I emailed the court asking what happened. They wrote back today and said they’ll send it to Bo again — and asked for my address, which is signed at the bottom of the very petition that produced the ruling.

I’m filing a fresh appeal tonight.

╚═══════════════╝

—— ✦ ——

THE STORY, STEP BY STEP

🗓️ 17 April — I’m in a hearing. The court appoints Teis liquidator. To avoid translation risks, I ask — orally — that the court also send documents to Bo, a shareholder helping me. As a backup copy, to his email. Not as a replacement for serving me.

🗓️ 22 April — Five days later, I file the petition to remove Teis: eight independent grounds of conflict. I sign it with my full address. By email — the same channel that had worked all along.

🗓️ 5 May — The Maritime Court rules on my petition. Closed session. No one summoned. It decides Teis stays. I am not told. The ruling goes to Bo’s e-Boks — not even the email we’d mentioned, but his digital mailbox.

🗓️ 1 June (yesterday) — The High Court rejects my appeal, pointing to that 5 May ruling as already-decided. That is how I learn it exists — weeks later, secondhand.

🗓️ Today — The court’s head secretary replies to my question. Here it is, word for word.

▼ ▼ ▼ [ EP81_EXHIBIT_court_email.png ] ▼ ▼ ▼

Two claims in that email. Both fall apart.

Kendelse

129KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

❌ “Your email is not secure.” Then how did the High Court email me — in this same case — and receive my address by reply? Every decision, every exchange, came by email without a problem. Suddenly, for this one ruling, email won’t do.

Retsbog (2)

104KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

❌ “Agreed on 17 April.” No. On 17 April I agreed to a backup copy to Bo. And it’s chronologically impossible: the petition this ruling answers wasn’t filed until 22 April — five days later. You can’t agree, on the 17th, how to deliver a decision about a document that won’t exist until the 22nd.

—— ✦ ——

THE ADDRESS

I wrote it three times — in the email header, in the body, and signed at the end of the petition. No mention of Bo anywhere. Here is what I wrote, and what they put on my summons:

▼ ▼ ▼ [ EP81_EXHIBIT_address_compare.png ] ▼ ▼ ▼

They dropped “Tube.” They changed “Strada” to “Intrarea.” They deleted Casa 13, Voluntari, and Ilfov. It is a different street. I don’t live there.

Indkaldelse Til Retsmøde

108KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

You cannot copy-paste an address from a request — and they couldn’t even do that.

—— ✦ ——

THE LOGIC THAT BROKE ME

Set the address aside for a second. Look at why the Maritime Court says Teis should stay.

Their reasoning: Teis is a fit liquidator because the creditors appointed him trustee — in the January bankruptcy. The January bankruptcy that the Eastern High Court unanimously annulled on 5 March as unlawful.

╔═══ 🤡 READ THAT TWICE ═══╗

The court says Teis is fit to be liquidator BECAUSE he was chosen as trustee by creditors in a bankruptcy that was declared illegal. They’re using an unlawful proceeding as the credential that qualifies him for the next one.

╚═════════════════════════╝

And it gets worse, because of the chain:

🔗 6 Jan — Teis appointed trustee in a bankruptcy later ruled unlawful.

🔗 5 Feb — As that trustee, Teis bankrupts Sanako Oy (Finland, ~€8.6M) on a mandate that turns out to have no legal basis.

🔗 5 Mar — High Court annuls the January bankruptcy and remits it.

🔗 6 May — Teis, now liquidator, petitions for a new bankruptcy.

🔗 11 May — New bankruptcy granted. Teis appointed trustee again.

So the second bankruptcy grows directly out of the first, unlawful one. Teis’s job now is to investigate the causes of the second bankruptcy — which means investigating his own conduct during the first, the one a higher court already struck down.

╔═══ ⚖️ THE IMPOSSIBILITY ═══╗

A liquidator who — on the back of an unlawful bankruptcy — petitions for a new one cannot then be the person who impartially investigates whether that first proceeding, and his own role in it, gives rise to claims against himself.

This isn’t a conflict of interest. It’s a logical impossibility. Teis investigating Teis.

╚══════════════════════════╝

—— ✦ ——

WHY THIS IS BIGGER THAN A TYPO

This is the same mistake as the first time. The January bankruptcy was annulled because they served the wrong person — a board member, not the company properly. Now, on the conflict ruling, they’ve done it again: served a shareholder’s inbox instead of me, the petitioner, at the address I gave them three times.

I am a European citizen. I file everything in good order, in good faith, in a language not my own, at real cost. And the floor under all of it is this: a court ruled against me on the most important question in the case — whether the man liquidating my company is conflicted — in a room where no one was summoned, mailed it to the wrong person, misspelled my address, and then, when asked, offered to mail it to the wrong person again.

In Romania we’re raised on suspicion of hidden hands. Denmark is built on the opposite — on trust that the procedure protects you. That’s exactly why a procedural trap is so dangerous here: it runs to completion while everyone assumes the system is working.

—— ✦ ——

📊 SCOREBOARD — DAY 81

✅ First appeal (K 3337/25-F) — WON, 3 judges, unanimous. ✅ DFSA / Carnegie (Topholm) — WON, reprimand issued. ❌ Appeal B-281-26 — lost yesterday, on procedure, not substance. ⚖️ Forced dissolution (the appeal’s minor part) — belongs in administrative court, never the priority. ⚠️ Teis’s conflict (5 May ruling) — decided in closed session, never served on me. 🔧 Fresh appeal vs 5 May ruling — filing tonight, suspension + deadline restoration. ⏳ Creditor petition § 108(2), ≈51% of claims — deadline Friday 5 June, parallel track. 📨 Access-to-documents request — sent, awaiting the court’s account of “service.”

—— ✦ ——

🔜 WHAT’S NEXT

📨 Tonight — I file the appeal against the 5 May ruling. Three asks: overturn it, suspend Teis now, restore the deadline. I’ll ask the High Court to count the clock from 1 June, the day I actually learned it existed.

⏳ Friday, 5 June — The creditors’ petition to replace the trustee, backed by roughly half the claim mass, falls due. Two fronts. Same nail.

—— ✦ ——

CLOSING

🎙️ “They decided whether the man liquidating my company is conflicted — in a room where no one was summoned.”

🎙️ “They mailed the ruling to a shareholder’s inbox. When I asked why, they offered to mail it to him again.”

🎙️ “Their logic for keeping Teis: he was picked as trustee in a bankruptcy that was ruled illegal.”

🎙️ “My address is in my petition three times. They wrote a street I don’t live on.”

🎙️ “The clock runs from service. There was no service. So the clock never started. So I’m on time.”

Q.E.D.

—— ✦ ——

Mark-Robert Abraham Founder · Former CEO · Shareholder Shape Robotics A/S (now Phase Education A/S) Director · Shape Robotics Romania S.R.L. (in reconstruction) CVR 38322656 · ISIN DK0061273125 · Nasdaq Copenhagen: SHAPE (suspended) Voluntari, Ilfov, Romania — 1 June 2026

#GameOver #ShapeRobotics #PhaseEducation #WildCEO #NasdaqCopenhagen #DueProcess #Article6 #TeisGullitzWormslev #KromannReumert #ConflictOfInterest #B281_2026 #SK524

Get more from Mark Abraham | WildCEO in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

The 42 Million That Never Landed

Today I disclose a document I have not shared until now. On 21 August 2025, Durham Capital Corporation of New York issued Shape Robotics A/S a financing proposal for a 42,000,000 senior secured credit facility — three-year term, 12% interest, first lien on all assets, guarantees by Shape. The proposal was signed and accepted on 31 August 2025. A non-refundable 210,000 application fee was paid. President signing for Durham: Sylvester F. Miniter.

The deal was real. Use of proceeds: refinance existing debt, create working capital for general corporate needs — exactly what a healthy, growing business-to-government company needs to fund large Polish school deployments and R&D.

In August 2025, Shape Robotics was not in trouble. We were closing a 42M facility with a serious New York counterparty. One condition precedent killed it. Durham’s lenders, on initial due diligence, identified a single overriding red flag: the publicly visible Carnegie/Topholm pump-and-dump pattern that the DFSA later formally confirmed. They could not lend into a name with that legal cloud. They told us, in plain terms: come clean on the market abuse first, or no deal.

We came clean. That is what I did, as CEO, in the months that followed — exactly because it was the condition precedent for serious financing. The disclosure was not naive, it was strategic. Without it, the 42M was impossible.

Within weeks of disclosure, the press attack started: 16 articles in finance press in one month, ~90% lies or distortions, on me personally. The lungs of the company were closed.

The puzzle of Shape Robotics is no longer mysterious. The only question left is the one I will repeat until somebody answers it: Why did Lars Topholm — the most senior research analyst in Danish investment banking — do what he did? Answer that question and the entire case unlocks.

The Durham Capital Term Sheet — Key Terms

• Counterparty: Durham Capital Corporation (with third-party lenders and/or assigns)

• Borrower: Shape Robotics A/S — Lyskaer 3C, 4th Floor, Herlev 2730

• Date of proposal: 21 August 2025

• Date signed and accepted: 31 August 2025

• Facility size: 42,000,000 — senior secured credit facility

• Term: 3 years

• Interest rate: 12% — interest only

• Origination fee: 3% · Unused line fee: 0.50%

• Collateral: first lien on all assets · Guaranteed by Shape

• Prepayment penalty: Year 1: 2% · Year 2: 1% · None thereafter

• Covenants: total funded debt not to exceed 70% of eligible A/R, 50% of inventory at cost, 75% NOLV of M&E and real estate

• Inspection: valuation report and review of books and records required

• Application fee paid (non-refundable): 210,000 — credited against Origination Fee on initial closing

• Use of proceeds: refinance debt; working capital for general corporate needs

• Signed for Durham: Sylvester F. Miniter, President

This is not the financing proposal a New York lender sends to a company that has run out of money. This is the proposal a New York lender sends to a going concern with significant receivables, inventory, machinery and real estate, intending a three-year asset-based facility with a first-lien structure. The very fact that Durham went through the work of writing this term sheet, and that we paid the 210,000 application fee, means the company was, at that moment, financeable at a 42M scale.

This is the document the Nordnet narrative has not had access to. Today it does.

The Condition Precedent — Why the Deal Did Not Close

Now to the difficult part of the story. Why didn’t the 42M land? It did not land because, between late August and mid-September 2025, Durham’s lenders ran their legal due diligence and identified an overriding red flag: the publicly visible pattern of the Carnegie/Topholm pump-and-dump cycle on the Shape Robotics share register. The price action was visible on Nasdaq Copenhagen. The pattern was visible to anyone in capital markets who looked carefully. The lenders looked carefully.

What the lenders told me — and what other serious financiers had been telling me for months by then — was the following, in plain language: smart people in this business had seen Shape Robotics price action for over a year. They concluded long ago that the company was the victim of insider trading and market abuse. The default assumption in their community was that when this kind of pattern persists and the board does nothing about it, the board itself is part of it. They could not lend 42M into a name whose management was suspected of being co-opted, even by inference. The only way forward was for me, as CEO, to break the silence and disclose the pattern publicly.

I want to be honest about how that felt as CEO. It was the hardest call I made at Shape. I knew that disclosing the pattern publicly would invite an asymmetric response from the very actors who had created the pattern. They had access to media. They had institutional protection. They had relationships across the Copenhagen financial ecosystem. I would be one Romanian founder against a system.

But the choice was: come clean and have a chance at the 42M and the future, or stay silent and watch the company die slowly without external financing. Growth companies in business-to-government education robotics cannot survive on bank debt alone. We had to raise capital from sources that could accept the listed-equity context. Those sources required clean books and clean reputation. The pump-and-dump pattern was a stain on both, regardless of whether we had caused it.

I chose to come clean. I told the board. The disclosure followed.

What Happened Next — The Lungs Closed

Within weeks of the disclosure, the response arrived. It was not subtle.

• Finance press attack — ~16 articles in one month in Finans and JP/Hus (same group), of which in my reading ~90% were lies, distortions or framings about me personally.

• Liquidity collapse — once the press cycle began, the share price collapsed further and the listed-equity channel for capital was effectively closed. The Durham facility could not close into a name that the Copenhagen press was actively burying.

• Cancellation of inbound trust — prospective financiers who had been in conversation with us went silent or politely withdrew. We had bet on transparency rebuilding trust; instead, transparency triggered the system’s antibodies.

• 6 January 2026 — a bankruptcy petition was filed on a salary dispute that should have been resolved through Lønmodtagernes Garantifond. The bankruptcy was granted next day. Without service. The Eastern High Court annulled it unanimously on 5 March 2026.

• 17 April 2026 — forced dissolution on Section 225 of the Companies Act, despite the company having a valid board, address and audit. Teis appointed liquidator.

• 11 May 2026 — reconstruction rejected; bankruptcy granted the same morning. Teis appointed kurator. Third time in four months.

The company was choked to death by external factors, not killed by management failures. No matter how able or smart the management would have been, surviving this scenario without coming clean was impossible. And coming clean — which the rational economic calculus required — was the trigger that made the rest of the destruction possible.

This is why I tell the community: stop debating whether Shape was well-managed. That is the wrong question. The right question is the one the Carnegie criminal complaint test poses: given that the DFSA has formally confirmed the market abuse, why is the trustee not pursuing the recovery?

A Word About the Board

I want to say something about the board of Shape Robotics during this period, because I have read on Nordnet some unfair commentary directed at people who do not deserve it. No one on the board profited from the pump-and-dump. No board member was a participant in the scheme. Nobody in the management was part of that. Nobody in the board was part of that. The board has its own issue — its members were arguably negligent in not acting fast enough when the pattern became visible — but they did not profit, and negligence is not complicity. The difference matters.

I want to name one person directly, because I cannot in fairness leave him out of this account: Jeppe Frandsen. Jeppe served as chairman during a difficult chapter of this company’s history. I had only things to learn from him. He knows exactly the pressure that was building on me through the meetings with large financiers in 2025. He knows how upset he was about the market-abuse situation when it became clear. He is, in my honest experience of working with him, an outstanding person. I owe him a public acknowledgement of that, and I am giving it here.

This dispatch is not aimed at anyone inside the company we built. It is aimed at the actors who created the pump-and-dump and at the trustee who, today, refuses to pursue the recovery. Those are different categories. I will not let them be conflated, and I will not let Nordnet commentary continue to conflate them either.

The Only Question That Matters

Now we arrive at the question that I will keep restating until somebody in the Danish establishment is willing to answer it. Why did Lars Topholm — managing director and head of research at Carnegie, the most senior research analyst in Danish investment banking — do what he did? Answer that, and the puzzle of Shape Robotics is solved.

The trolls on Nordnet who keep shouting “poor management” need to understand: everything that they are debating downstream is a consequence of that one upstream act. The illiquidity, the failed capital raises, the bankruptcy filings, the unlawful trusteeship, the destruction of value — all of it traces back to a senior analyst with undisclosed positions issuing recommendations that distorted price formation in a small-cap name.

That is not me speculating. The DFSA has, in a formal decision of 7 April 2026, reprimanded Topholm under MAR Article 20(1) for the very pattern I am describing. The reprimand is the institutional acknowledgement that the pump-and-dump happened. The reprimand exists in writing. It can be looked up.

I have my hypothesis. I will not state it publicly today because hypothesis-stating, even when accurate, can become the next pretext for press attack. What I will say is this: in a small market like Denmark’s, where ~50% of IPOs run through one investment bank, the incentives at the top of that bank are not aligned with the welfare of retail shareholders in small-cap listings. The fact that the senior figure in research can move a small-cap name through commentary — and that the consequences of doing so are a wrist-slap reprimand a year later — is a structural feature of the market, not an accident.

Scoreboard — Where We Stand on Day 80

• First appeal K 3337/25-F — WON (3 judges, 0 dissent)

• DFSA Topholm complaint 25-026420 — WON (Carnegie reprimanded)

• DFSA MAR confirmations (24/27 April) — DOCUMENTED IN WRITING

• Subsidiary court orders on promissory notes — OBTAINED

• Reconstruction appeal R 14/26-G — FILED 25 MAY

• Durham 42M term sheet (21 Aug 2025) — PUBLIC TODAY — proof Shape was financeable

• Carnegie criminal complaint (trustee’s statutory duty) — STILL NOT FILED — the supreme proof of conflict

• Our own Carnegie/Topholm complaint — 95% READY to be formalised

• Motion to replace Teis as curator (Romanian lever) — IN PREPARATION

• Suspensive effect request §395 — PENDING (proceed assuming NOT granted)

• Appeal on Teis as liquidator B-281-26 — AWAITING RULING

• Shape Romania reconstruction — OPEN — preliminary plan this week

What’s Next

• 28 May 2026 (today) — Durham term sheet disclosed for the first time.

• Coming days — further inside-the-tent disclosures continue; context the public did not have.

• This week — preliminary Romanian reconstruction plan filed.

• Coming days — motion to replace Teis as curator (Romanian lever).

• Awaiting — Eastern High Court ruling on B-281-26.

• Tomorrow — daily live session. Bring questions on Durham, the disclosure, the board.

Why I Am Sharing This Today

I want to explain why I am opening up the inside-the-tent record now, and not earlier. For 79 days, I have given you the legal and procedural story: the appeals, the regulators, the trustee, the Romanian lever. That story is true and important, but on its own it leaves a gap. Some readers conclude that Shape Robotics simply failed as a business, and that the rest is procedural noise. I have read enough Nordnet to know that this framing has gained traction.

The Durham term sheet ends that framing. A failing business does not get a 42M senior secured credit facility offer from a serious New York lender, signed and accepted, with a 210,000 non-refundable fee paid. That happened in August 2025. The business was working. What failed was not the business. What failed was the company’s ability to survive a coordinated capital-markets attack while a senior figure at the country’s largest investment bank had undisclosed positions in its stock.

I will continue, in the coming episodes, to disclose more from inside the tent — strictly within the bounds of legal obligation and ongoing proceedings. The objective is to give shareholders the information that prior management did not give them, and that the trustee does not give them, and that the press does not give them. The objective is the standard of transparency I believe every listed company owes its retail base. The standard I will personally hold the next iteration of this company to.

Closing

In August 2025, the company was not at all in a situation that required some sort of intervention. We had agreed with a serious financier from New York on a 42 million credit facility. The deal was real. The condition precedent was to come clean on the pump-and-dump. I came clean. From the moment we came clean, we were fighting an uphill battle against the most senior analyst at the country’s biggest investment bank. The company was choked to death by external factors. No matter how able or smart the management would have been, it was impossible to get out of this situation without coming clean.

There is nothing to gain in throwing stones at me. Even if I were the flat earther, the facts stand. Answer one question and the puzzle is solved: why did Lars Topholm do what he did?

Mark-Robert Abraham — Founder | Former CEO | Shareholder

Shape Robotics A/S (now Phase Education A/S) · Director, Shape Robotics Romania S.R.L. (in administration)

CVR 38322656 · ISIN DK0061273125 · Nasdaq Copenhagen: SHAPE (suspended)

Voluntari, Ilfov, Romania — 28 May 2026

Tomorrow: more from inside the tent. Bring your questions on Durham, on the disclosure, on the board, on the only question that matters.

Subscribe now

#GameOver #ShapeRobotics #PhaseEducation #WildCEO #NasdaqCopenhagen

Share

#DurhamCapital #42Million #PumpAndDump #Carnegie #Topholm #MarketAbuse #MAR #KromannReumert #TeisGullitzWormslev #4800Shareholders

Get more from Mark Abraham | WildCEO in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Nasdaq Copenhagen: SHAPE | CVR: DK38322656 | ISIN: DK0061273125

This Company Announcement is published pursuant to the Nasdaq Copenhagen Rulebook, Section 3.1, and concerns ongoing matters in cases R 1426-G (reconstruction appeal) and B-281-26 (appointment of the trustee before Østre Landsret), and the trustee’s pending statutory duties under Konkursloven §110 in respect of the documented Carnegie market-abuse scheme.

The full GAME OVER investigation (79 episodes) is available at substack.wildceo.live.

Today I had a small epiphany. Let me share it with you, because it simplifies everything.

TL;DR

A senior contact called me a “flat earther” today — the framing of me, apparently, in closed-door meetings where Teis participates. Conspiracy theorist. The crazy one. The one throwing bombs to cover up the real story — that the company simply ran out of money.

Fine. Forget me entirely.

Even if I am the flat earther in this story, the facts stand on their own. The Danish FSA has formally established that Shape Robotics was the victim of market abuse (Carnegie / Topholm reprimand of 7 April 2026). That fact does not require my credibility. It exists in the public record.

And here is the simple consequence: under Danish bankruptcy law, a trustee who becomes aware of facts amounting to criminal conduct is compelled to file a criminal complaint with the police. The market-abuse scheme is documented. The trustee Teis has done nothing about it.

The Flat Earther Frame

Let me reconstruct, as fairly as I can, the way I am described in rooms I am not in.

There is a serious, experienced lawyer — head of the bankruptcy division at one of Denmark’s largest law firms — who walks into a failed company. He sees, in his view, an ordinary insolvency: a company that ran out of money. His job is to sell what is left, recover what he can, and distribute it to creditors. Standard work.

Then he encounters the founder. The founder is loud. The founder writes a daily Substack. The founder files appeals, criminal complaints, regulatory complaints, civil-restitution claims, MAR notices. The founder talks about pump-and-dumps, institutional bypass, the European Convention on Human Rights, a Romanian lever, Brussels Ibis, fruit of the poisonous tree.

From that frame, my behaviour looks like the behaviour of a flat earther — a person who has lost the ability to distinguish his own theory from reality.

I want to acknowledge that frame fairly, because I have spent enough months in Denmark to understand where it comes from. Perception in Denmark is bound up with trust. Institutions are trusted by default. Senior lawyers at senior firms are trusted by default. The pump-and-dump claim sounds, in that environment, like Eastern-European paranoia projected onto a normal commercial failure.

Now Forget Me Entirely — Look at the Facts

Imagine, for the sake of argument, that the flat-earther framing is correct. I am loud, I am dramatic, I am wrong about most of what I say. The case still stands — because none of the foundations rest on my credibility.

Here is what survives the concession — every fact independent of me, every source verifiable, every date public:

• Shape Robotics was the victim of market abuse — Danish FSA formal reprimand of Carnegie / Lars Topholm under MAR Art. 20(1) — 7 April 2026

• The original bankruptcy of 6 January 2026 was unlawful — Eastern High Court, unanimous 3-judge panel, K 3337/25-F — 5 March 2026

• MAR obligations apply throughout suspension, liquidation and bankruptcy — DFSA Legal Officer Viktor Stidsen Katic, in writing, twice, J.nr. 25-026876 — 24 & 27 April 2026

• The trustee issued zero company announcements in 59 days as representative of a listed issuer — Cision Copenhagen, absence of filings — 6 Jan – 5 Mar 2026

• Sanako Oy was bankrupted by its parent’s trustee during the unlawful period — Turun käräjäoikeus public ruling — 5 February 2026

• Romanian Ministry of Education lawsuit — Romanian court definitive judgment, not appealed, EUR 24 million — January 2026

Not one of these requires you to believe a word I say. Each one comes from an institution that is independent of me, in a public record that is verifiable by anyone. The Substack is the narrative — the institutions are the proof. So forget me. The facts are still there.

The Curator’s Statutory Duty — The Supreme Proof

Now to the simplifying epiphany of today’s conversation.

Under Danish bankruptcy law, when a trustee — a kurator, likvidator, rekonstruktør, by whatever name — becomes aware of facts that suggest criminal conduct affecting the estate, that trustee is compelled to file a criminal complaint with the police. This is not discretionary. It is a statutory duty rooted in the trustee’s obligation under Konkursloven §110 to act in the interests of the creditors and to identify and pursue every claim that could bring value to the estate.

• So let us apply the duty to today’s facts:

• The Danish FSA has formally established that Shape Robotics was the victim of market abuse.

• The perpetrators are documented: Carnegie Investment Bank and its analyst Lars Topholm.

• The damages run into tens of millions of crowns.

• Recovery of those damages would be a substantial asset of the estate, benefiting both creditors and shareholders.

• The trustee, by statute, is obliged to file a criminal complaint and pursue the civil consequences.

• The trustee has not done it. He has not informed creditors. He has not opened an internal file. He has been silent on the question entirely.

For months, the community has been asking: how do we prove the curator is not acting in the interests of the creditors? The answer, after today’s conversation, is now simple. The Carnegie criminal complaint test. Any independent curator, faced with a DFSA reprimand documenting market abuse against the company in the estate, would file. The fact that this curator does not file — and does not speak about not filing — is, on its own, sufficient evidence that he is not serving the creditors.

You do not need to believe a single thing I have said for 79 days. You only need to ask one question: where is the criminal complaint against Carnegie?

The Reason for the Inaction — And It Is Not Mysterious

There is no mystery here. Kromann Reumert is one of Carnegie Investment Bank’s principal Danish advisors. A partner of Kromann Reumert filing a criminal complaint against Carnegie on behalf of one estate would be, in effect, suing one of the firm’s most important clients across the hallway from his own desk.

That is the conflict. It explains everything.

I will repeat this every day from now on. The Carnegie criminal complaint test is the cleanest, simplest, hardest-to-misframe demonstration of the curator’s conflict. It cuts through the flat-earther noise entirely.

What Belongs to the Estate — And Therefore to You

Let me state what the Carnegie case is actually worth in concrete terms, because the numbers matter.

The Topholm/Carnegie scheme — the pump-and-dump cycle that destroyed value for the 4,800 retail shareholders of Shape Robotics during 2023–2024 — represents potential damages well into the tens of millions of Danish kroner. These would be recoverable in a civil action following a successful criminal investigation.

The DFSA has already done the heavy lifting on establishing that the abuse occurred. The criminal prosecution would convert it into a damages claim. The civil action would convert the damages claim into cash. That cash belongs to the creditors and shareholders of Shape Robotics. Not to me. Not to the trustee personally. To the estate.

Our community has already done the work the trustee should have been doing. We have documented the extraction scheme — who profited, when, through which accounts. The pump-and-dump complaint is, in my hands, 95% ready. The institutions are willing. The only obstacle is the curator.

One Note of Fairness — Teis Did One Thing Right

In fairness to the record — and because I do not want to be the flat earther — Teis has begun a D&O insurance claim against the former management, including potentially against me. From a curator’s perspective, this is appropriate work; pursuing recoverable insurance lines is part of the duty. I will defend that claim on the merits when it is brought.

But the fact that Teis is doing one thing right does not absolve him of the larger duty he is refusing to perform. Two duties exist. He is performing one and refusing the other. Both are owed to the same estate.

The Larger Lesson — Beyond Me, Beyond Teis, Beyond Carnegie

What the Shape Robotics case has exposed, in the last 79 days, is a small, closed market — Denmark’s listed-equity ecosystem — in which a relatively small number of professional firms, analysts, advisors and journalists all know each other, frequently work for each other, and rarely investigate each other.

• In this environment:An analyst with undisclosed positions issues a recommendation that triggers a pump-and-dump cycle — and the press writes nothing.

• A listed company gets bankrupted unlawfully in a ten-minute hearing — and the press writes about whether one of its subsidiaries’ lawsuits was booked one quarter too early.

• A trustee fails to disclose for 59 days as the representative of a Nasdaq Copenhagen issuer, and the DFSA confirms in writing that he should have — and the press writes nothing.

• A criminal complaint against the analyst is not filed by the trustee whose firm advises the analyst’s bank — and the obvious conflict goes unmentioned.

This is the system. It is not a conspiracy. It is what happens when a market is small enough that the costs of exposing each other’s conflicts exceed the benefits of doing so.

Romanians recognise this pattern from a different historical context. Danes have, in good faith, built a system based on trust — and the people who exploit trust-based systems are exactly the people you should be most suspicious of.

I will use this Substack, in the weeks ahead, to draw out those structural lessons more explicitly. Not only daily tactical updates on the case, but the wider analysis: system vulnerabilities, corporate-governance vulnerabilities, human vulnerabilities that the Shape Robotics case has made visible. There is something for other investors, other founders, other regulators to take from this.

Scoreboard — Where We Stand on Day 79

• First appeal K 3337/25-F — WON (3 judges, 0 dissent)

• DFSA Topholm complaint 25-026420 — WON (Carnegie reprimanded)

• DFSA MAR confirmations 24–27 April — DOCUMENTED IN WRITING

• Subsidiary court orders on promissory notes — OBTAINED

• Reconstruction appeal R 1426-G — FILED 25 MAY

• Motion to replace Teis as curator (Romanian lever) — IN PREPARATION

• Carnegie criminal complaint (trustee’s statutory duty) — NOT FILED (the supreme proof of conflict)

• Our own Carnegie/Topholm complaint — 95% READY to be formalised

• D&O insurance claim (trustee acting appropriately) — STARTED (fair acknowledgement)

• Suspensive effect request §395 — PENDING (proceed assuming NOT granted)

• Appeal on Teis as liquidator B-281-26 — AWAITING RULING (silence may favour us)

• Shape Romania reconstruction — OPEN (preliminary plan this week)

What’s Next

• 27 May 2026 (today) — The Carnegie criminal complaint test, articulated publicly

• This week — Preliminary Romanian reconstruction plan filed

• Coming days — Motion to replace Teis as curator (Romanian lever)

• Awaiting — Eastern High Court ruling on B-281-26

• Coming weeks — Substack widens to include structural lessons from the case

• Tomorrow — Daily live session, bring your questions

Closing

Even if I am the crazy one in this whole scenario — and let me concede the framing — I was able to prove that there was market abuse. That creates the obligation of the trustee today to file a criminal complaint against Carnegie.

How can Teis go against his own company? Kromann Reumert is one of Carnegie’s biggest advisors. That is the conflict. That is why he will not file.

The interest of the creditors and shareholders requires that complaint to be filed. The only person not doing it is Teis — because he is heavily conflicted.

Q.E.D.—

Mark-Robert Abraham

Founder | Former CEO | Shareholder

Shape Robotics A/S (now Phase Education A/S)

Director — Shape Robotics Romania S.R.L. (in administration)

CVR 38322656 | ISIN DK0061273125

Nasdaq Copenhagen: SHAPE (suspended)

Voluntari, Ilfov, Romania — 27 May 2026

Tomorrow: live session. Bring your questions on the Carnegie complaint, the curator’s duty, and the larger structural lessons. The Substack continues.

#GameOver #ShapeRobotics #PhaseEducation #WildCEO #NasdaqCopenhagen #Carnegie #Topholm #MarketAbuse #MAR #ConflictOfInterest #KromannReumert #TeisGullitzWormslev #FlatEarther #R1426G #B2812026 #4800Shareholders

Nasdaq Copenhagen: SHAPE | CVR: DK38322656 | ISIN: DK0061273125

This Company Announcement is published pursuant to the Nasdaq Copenhagen Rulebook, Section 3.1, and concerns the pending appeals in cases R 1426-G (reconstruction) and B-281-26 (appointment of the trustee) before Østre Landsret.

The full GAME OVER investigation — 78 episodes — is available at substack.wildceo.live.

A short technical glitch on the Substack server delayed today’s stream — apologies. Now to the substance: how we remove the curator without needing a Danish court to do it for us.

🧭 TL;DR

🇷🇴 The next move is a motion to replace Teis as curator — and the mechanism runs through Romania, not Copenhagen. Shape Robotics Romania is under administration. I remain director under administration. My role, alongside the Romanian curator, is to protect the creditors of the subsidiary. We have identified the principal cause of Romania’s insolvency: the unlawful Danish bankruptcy and Teis’s 59-day mandate.

⚖️ The claim flows uphill. Shape Romania — and its sub-subsidiaries — have claims against the mother company. The mother company was run, during the 59 days, by the man who destroyed value in the daughter. That gives us a creditor’s lever against Teis that does not require the intervention of the Danish High Court.

🪞 Teis is verifying Teis. As today’s curator, one of his core duties is to establish why Shape Robotics is bankrupt. But Shape is bankrupt today because it was unlawfully bankrupt months ago — under Teis. So the curator investigating the cause of the bankruptcy is the curator who caused it. Unheard of.

📜 On the promissory notes: Teis can no longer claim “there is no claim” or “the notes are false.” We have already obtained court orders at subsidiary level for these promissory notes. It is a matter of short time and patience.

🛑 On suspensive effect — managing expectations honestly: we requested it under § 395, but realistically we should proceed on the assumption that the bankruptcy will not be suspended during the appeal. If our enemies say “the suspensive request was rejected, so the appeal will be rejected” — that is manipulation. The two are unrelated.

⏳ Still no ruling on B-281-26. I wrote to the High Court again today. In my reading, silence may favour us: a court that wants to reject an appeal can do so quickly; a court minded to grant relief takes more time. Time may be on our side.

🪞 Teis Verifying Teis — The Absurdity at the Centre

Let me restate the structural absurdity clearly, because it is the heart of everything.

For 59 days — from 6 January to 5 March 2026 — Shape Robotics was in a bankruptcy that the Eastern High Court later declared unlawful. Those 59 days were administered entirely by Teis Gullitz-Wormslev. The damage he did in that window is documented beyond reasonable doubt across these episodes and in the evidence already filed.

Now Teis is curator again, following the 11 May bankruptcy. And one of a curator’s principal jobs is to establish why the company went bankrupt.

PROOF. Shape Robotics is bankrupt today because it was unlawfully bankrupt a few months ago. The cause of today’s bankruptcy lies inside the 59 days. So the curator’s duty to investigate the cause of the bankruptcy requires him to investigate his own conduct during the 59 days. Teis checks Teis. Teis verifies Teis.

Nobody has heard of such a situation. A curator who created a disaster in 59 days, now protecting the creditors of the same estate by verifying himself and his own disaster. It is not a conflict of interest at the margins. It is total. It is the whole thing.

🇷🇴 The Romanian Lever — Why We Don’t Need a Danish Court

This is the part I want shareholders to understand clearly, because it changes the entire balance of the fight.

Here is the situation:

• Shape Robotics Romania is under administration. I am the director under administration, working alongside the Romanian curator.

• Our shared duty is to protect the creditors of the Romanian subsidiary.

• The identified cause of Romania’s insolvency is the unlawful Danish bankruptcy and Teis’s 59-day mandate, which left Shape Romania without management, without decision-making, without the ability to make payments — in total disarray.

• Therefore the blame, and the claim that derives from it, runs against Teis and Kromann Reumert.

Now follow the chain:

Step Consequence Shape Romania becomes insolvent A Romanian curator must find the cause and pursue claims The cause is the Danish parent’s 59-day unlawful bankruptcy The claim runs uphill, from daughter to mother The mother company has a duty to compensate the daughter That claim is an asset of the Romanian estate Teis, as Danish trustee, neglected his duty to preserve subsidiary value The claim crystallises against Teis personally and Kromann Reumert

This means Shape Robotics Romania — and its sub-subsidiaries — hold claims against the mother company, and the mother company was run, during the critical window, by the man who destroyed value in the daughter. That gives us a creditor’s lever against Teis that operates through Romanian and European enforcement mechanisms — without requiring a Danish court to act first.

We have the instruments available to us. In the coming weeks, we use them.

“We can do that without the intervention necessarily of the High Court. Right now we have instruments available to us to do that without any kind of Danish court.”

— Live recording, 26 May 2026

I will keep the precise technical structure of the motion as a surprise — including a surprise for Teis, who, I am now convinced, follows these streams every day. I have dropped several hints to see how he reacts. We have seen the reactions. I am convinced.

📣 A Direct Word to the Curator

I will speak directly, because I know you are watching.

You have to stop. There is no way for you to recover anything from this. The only thing left in your control is whether you amplify the damage you have created — for yourself and for the company. This moment is already lost for you, Teis. You will be removed from your position sooner rather than later. There are multiple avenues open against you.

You cannot keep claiming there is no claim, or that the promissory notes are false. We have already obtained the court orders at subsidiary level for these promissory notes. It is a matter of short time. We are patient.

Stop amplifying the bill. It will come. You will pay it.

🛑 On Suspensive Effect — An Honest Word

There were comments about the suspensive nature of our appeal — the request under § 395 to suspend the bankruptcy of Shape Robotics until the appeal is decided.

Let me be honest with you, because honesty is the entire point of this channel.

A suspensive-effect request usually requires considerable strength to be granted. In my opinion, we should proceed on the assumption that the proceedings will not be suspended during the appeal. We will wait for the appeal itself.

This is not something you need to treat as important. And when our enemies say “the suspensive request was rejected, therefore the appeal will be rejected” — recognise that for what it is: manipulation. The suspensive request and the merits of the appeal are unrelated. Do not fall victim to it.

The path in front of us is now very direct and very clear. It is a legal battle. We have played our cards. The job now is patience and open dialogue.

⏳ Still No Ruling on B-281-26 — And Why That May Be Good

I wrote to the High Court again today regarding the decision on the appeal against the appointment of Teis as liquidator (B-281-26). Still nothing.

In my reading, this silence may favour us:

A court that wants to reject an appeal can do so quickly. A court that is minded to grant relief — to follow our prayers — tends to take more time. Time, in this reading, is on our side.

I offer this as my interpretation, not a guarantee. But I do not read the silence as a bad sign.

🌍 The Shareholder-Centric Doctrine — Why I Stream Every Day

I want to say something about why I do this — the daily streams, the documents, the transparency — because it goes to the kind of reconstruction we are building.

During the 59 days, Teis had a legal obligation to communicate with the market and disclosed nothing. Since we resumed control, we have published more than 15 company announcements plus daily information — even though, as the party fighting the trustee, we have no formal obligation to share. We share because transparency serves the shareholders.

This is, I believe, a new model for how a publicly listed company should interact with its investors:

• Direct dialogue between management and retail investors, on open platforms.

• The same level of information retail investors would otherwise never get — the kind shared only in Tier 1 investor meetings, with investment bankers, with analysts of Topholm’s caliber.

• Freedom-of-speech tools like Substack, used to bypass a partisan press that has, in my view, protected the interests of a small, closed financier market rather than the shareholders.

I have even accepted criticism from Progression on one narrow point — that the AE4 situation should probably have been communicated more transparently to shareholders. I am a firm believer that the way we have communicated these last months is the right way, and that it should become a market standard: openness toward retail investors, dialogue as direct as possible — without disclosing inside information or manipulating, as Topholm did.

Today, for example, I received an email from Leonora Beck of Børsen — now a subscriber to this channel — asking for the appeal documents. I will not share those documents in writing at this stage. I will explain their content verbally and transparently through this channel, to keep a clean separation between legal opportunity and legal obligation of disclosure. You, the shareholders, get the information unfiltered, in real time, directly.

🔧 Not an SAS Reconstruction — Shareholder-Centric, Not Creditor-Centric

I want to be explicit about the kind of reconstruction we are building, because it is genuinely different.

We do not plan to do an SAS-style reconstruction, in which existing shareholders are wiped out. Ours is an innovative, different model that is shareholder-centric, not creditor-centric in the classical sense.

Classical reconstruction (SAS-style) Our model Creditor-centric Shareholder-centric Existing shareholders diluted/wiped Existing shareholders’ integrity preserved Debt restructured, equity sacrificed Debt converted to litigation rights against those who caused the damage New institutional money takes control New capital invited transparently, shareholders decide

The creditor win, we essentially already have — we have the instruments necessary to deliver a creditor outcome. What we are still fighting for are the instruments to restart the company and bring it back toward its pre-pump-and-dump value. That is the mission. That is what the daily fight, and the daily transparency, is for.

“You are not useful idiots. You are my partners.”

📊 Scoreboard — Where We Stand on Day 78

• First appeal (K 3337-25-F) — WON, 3 judges, 0 dissent, 5 March 2026.

• DFSA Topholm complaint (25-026420) — WON, Carnegie reprimanded.

• DFSA MAR confirmations (24–27 April) — DOCUMENTED IN WRITING.

• Subsidiary court orders on promissory notes — OBTAINED.

• Reconstruction appeal (R 1426-G) — FILED 25 MAY, 60 points, 14 exhibits.

• Motion to replace Teis as curator (Romanian lever) — IN PREPARATION, coming days.

• Suspensive effect request (§ 395) — PENDING, proceed assuming NOT granted.

• Appeal on Teis as liquidator (B-281-26) — AWAITING RULING, silence may favour us.

• Shape Romania reconstruction — OPEN, preliminary plan this week.

• Claim Romania → mother company → Teis & Kromann Reumert — CRYSTALLISING.

• Several secret actions — DELIBERATELY NOT PUBLIC.

🔜 What’s Next

• Today, 26 May 2026: announced the motion-to-replace-curator strategy via the Romanian lever.

• Coming days: motion to replace Teis as curator — technical structure kept as a surprise.

• This week: preliminary Romanian reconstruction plan filed.

• Awaiting: High Court ruling on B-281-26.

• Tomorrow: daily live session — bring your questions.

✊ Closing

“How can Teis verify Teis? It’s unheard of.”

“We can do that without the intervention of the High Court. We have the instruments.”

“This moment is already lost, Teis. You will be removed sooner rather than later.”

“We do not plan an SAS-mode reconstruction. Ours is shareholder-centric, not creditor-centric.”

“I’m quite thankful to Thais for making so many mistakes — and just waiting for the bill to come. He will have to pay.”

Q.E.D.

Mark-Robert Abraham Founder · Former CEO · Shareholder Shape Robotics A/S (now Phase Education A/S) Director · Shape Robotics Romania S.R.L. (in administration) CVR 38322656 · ISIN DK0061273125 Nasdaq Copenhagen: SHAPE (suspended)

Voluntari, Ilfov, Romania — 26 May 2026

Tomorrow: daily live session. Enjoy the sun — summer is coming. See you then.

#GameOver #ShapeRobotics #PhaseEducation #WildCEO #NasdaqCopenhagen #Reconstruction #CuratorReplacement #Romania #R1426G #B28126 #KromannReumert #TeisGullitzWormslev #ShareholderCentric #4800Shareholders

Share

Leave a comment

Get more from Mark Abraham | WildCEO in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Day 70 — The Expert Behind the Paywall · Day 69 — Romania Enters the Battlefield · Day 68 — Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.

Nasdaq Copenhagen: SHAPE · CVR DK38322656 · ISIN DK0061273125.

Apologies for the silence. I travelled and the schedule slipped. I am back to daily dispatches. A great deal has moved. Let me bring you fully up to date.

What we filed today — Case R 1426-G

Today, 25 May 2026, we filed the appeal against the rejection of the reconstruction. Filed in good time, within the two-week appeal window under § 394(1) of the Administration of Justice Act. 60 numbered points. 14 exhibits. We are very confident in this appeal and in its power.

The core argument: the Probate Court applied the wrong legal test. To open a reconstruction under § 11 of the Bankruptcy Act, the court must only find it probable — i.e. not excludable — that a claim exists and that the debtor is insolvent. Instead, the court applied a trial’s standard of proof, as if the claim had to be finally adjudicated. That strict standard has no basis in the Bankruptcy Act.

We requested suspensive effect under § 39(5), so that the bankruptcy is suspended and no further disposition of the company’s assets is made until the High Court rules. The purpose of reconstruction is to preserve assets — if the bankruptcy continues, those assets may be realised or impaired to the point that reconstruction becomes illusory, regardless of how the High Court rules.

TL;DR — Day 77 at a glance

• Case: R 1426-G (reconstruction).

• Filed: 25 May 2026 — within the § 394(1) two-week window.

• Length: 60 numbered points across 10 pages.

• Exhibits: 14. Annexes: 1–14.

• Principal claim: set aside the 11 May order and commence reconstruction for Shape Robotics A/S.

• Alternative claim: remit the case to the Insolvency Court for reconsideration.

• Procedural request: suspensive effect under § 39(5) — suspend the bankruptcy until the High Court rules.

• Counsel: Thomas Weitemeyer, Moalem Weitemeyer (ref. 262370).

The Core Argument — why the court applied the wrong test

What the law requires

Under§ 11(1) of the Bankruptcy Act, reconstruction proceedings must be opened if two conditions are met: (1) the debtor is insolvent and (2) the creditor has a claim against the debtor. That is the entire test.

The Bankruptcy Act does not require that the claim be undisputed, finally determined, recorded in the accounts, or proven to the standard you would need to win a judgment. The court must only ascertain whether it is probable — meaning it cannot be ruled out — that the claim exists.

What the court did instead

The Probate Court departed from this correct starting point. It subjected the claim to a substantive examination of the evidence, as if it were trying the claim on the merits — despite the fact that the evidence required for such a trial had not been, and need not be, adduced at the reconstruction stage.

PROOF. § 11 contains no upper limit on the size of a claim that may found a reconstruction petition. The size of the claim cannot, by itself, justify a stricter examination or be an independent ground for dismissal.

In other words: the court raised the bar far above what the statute sets, and then dismissed the petition for failing to clear a bar that should never have been there.

The Claim — Elena Pasat, technical claim-holder

Below is the documented basis of the claim on which the reconstruction rests. Elena Pasat is the technical holder — the creditor of record.

• 26 Aug 2021 — Share Purchase Agreement: Elena Pasat sells 100% of StoryKids by EP S.R.L. to Shape Robotics A/S. (Annex 1)

• 27 Aug 2021 — Consultancy Agreement. (Annex 2)

• Feb 2022 — Addendum 2: 2% commission on all SRR revenue + 25% of enterprise value in shares from the StoryKids acquisition. (Annex 3)

• 7 Dec 2022 — Promissory Note 2022 (BRDE3AA 1081390), guaranteed by André Fehrn for Shape Robotics A/S. (Annex 4)

• 27 Oct 2025 — Power of Attorney: CEO Mark-Robert Abraham authorises André Fehrn to bind Shape Robotics A/S as guarantor on SRR promissory notes. (Annex 7)

• 27 Nov 2025 — Promissory Note 2025 (BACX3AA 6240945), replacing the 2022 note. (Annex 6)

• 14–16 Jan 2026 — Note falls due; payment rejected by Romania’s PIR (register no. 3952847) for RON 147,967,781 due to garnishment/seizure. (Annex 9)

• 19 Jan 2026 — Claim filed with the trustee. (Annex 10)

• 21 Jan 2026 — Trustee enters the claim as GB 33, a § 97 claim, in the debt register. (Annex 11)

• 26 Jan 2026 — Trustee’s Creditor Information 2 confirms claims based on Shape Robotics’ guarantee declarations. (Annex 12)

• 8 Mar 2026 — Reinstated management (Aurel Nein, Chairman; Mark-Robert Abraham, CEO) formally acknowledges the claim of DKK 217,088,880.58 as valid, certain and enforceable. (Annex 13)

The trustee’s silence is itself an acknowledgement

Elena Pasat filed her claim on 19 January 2026 — three days after the payment was refused. The trustee Teis entered it under GB 33 as a § 97 claim without any objection. At no point during the bankruptcy did the trustee call the claim for verification.

Compare with the comparable Moby Industries S.R.L. claim — GB 31, also a § 97 claim, also based on an SRR promissory note, also endorsed by André Fehrn, filed 20 January 2026. Same structure. Same treatment.

PROOF. It is disputed that the trustee can now challenge the validity of a claim he never took a position on or moved to verify. The trustee’s inaction is itself an acknowledgement that the claim possesses the clarity and substance required to found reconstruction proceedings.

You cannot register a claim, leave it unchallenged for months, and then turn around and say it is too unclear to support a reconstruction. That is not how the law works. That is not how anything works.

On the promissory notes — why the signature objection fails

The Probate Court attached decisive weight to the fact that the promissory notes were guaranteed by André Fehrn, who the court noted did not have sole signing authority at the time. The appeal dismantles this on three levels.

1. A promissory note is a negotiable instrument. By its legal nature it corresponds to a bill of exchange — an independent instrument of debt that is itself sufficient evidence of the claim. The holder of a duly issued and endorsed note need not separately prove the underlying relationship.

2. A director’s signature binds the company. Where the undertaking falls within the director’s sphere of competence — and a CEO endorsing a guarantee for a wholly-owned subsidiary’s earn-out plainly does — the signature validly binds the company.

3. There was an express Power of Attorney (Annex 7). Before the 2025 note was endorsed, Shape Robotics A/S authorised André Fehrn to “sign, execute, endorse, deliver, and otherwise validly bind Shape Robotics A/S in its capacity as guarantor on any and all Promissory Notes issued by Shape Robotics Romania S.R.L. — expressly in connection with earn-out obligations including the STORYKIDS BY EP S.R.L. transaction.” The Power of Attorney also waives any defence based on lack of authorisation, exceeding of mandate, or internal procedural irregularity.

The trustee did not record it — so what?

The court weighted the fact that, per the trustee, the claim does not appear in Shape Robotics’ accounts. The appeal answers this directly.

• Any failure by a debtor to record an obligation in its accounts is solely a matter for the company’s management. It cannot prejudice the creditor.

• A creditor’s rights do not lapse because the debtor failed to book the debt correctly.

• Promissory notes are negotiable instruments — valid and enforceable regardless of whether they appear in the debtor’s books.

The 217M claim being absent from the accounts is, if anything, evidence of the prior management’s failures — not a defence the estate can now raise against the creditor.

Romania — the parallel front

While the Danish appeal proceeds on paper, the Romanian reconstruction proceeds in operational reality.

• By Friday this week we file the preliminary business reconstruction plan for Shape Robotics Romania. It is a starting point, not yet comprehensive — but it establishes the framework.

• I remain company director. Daily meetings with the reconstruction lawyer. We are consolidating the assets that can be carried into the reconstruction.

• The Romanian trustee must establish the cause of insolvency within the first 40 days (30 in Denmark). The cause is documented and clear: the chaos of the 59-day unlawful Danish bankruptcy that left Shape Robotics Romania without management, without decision-making, without the ability to make payments — in total disarray.

• Next: a clear finding from the Romanian trustee, combined with the court, to start immediate proceedings to claim the full loss of value of the company directly against the trustee Teis and Kromann Reumert. Complex, multi-month process. The direction is clear as day.

Scoreboard — where we stand on Day 77

• First appeal (K 3337-25-F) — WON, 3 judges, 0 dissent, 5 March 2026.

• DFSA Topholm complaint (25-026420) — WON, Carnegie reprimanded.

• DFSA MAR confirmations (24–27 April) — documented in writing.

• MAR Article 17 supervisory file (26-005434) — OPEN.

• Criminal complaint vs Teis (0100-83986-10362-26) — well underway.

• Bar Council case (2026-1127) — OPEN, response received 11 May.

• Reconstruction appeal (R 1426-G) — FILED TODAY, 60 points, 14 exhibits.

• Suspensive effect request (§ 39(5)) — awaiting; would suspend Teis and freeze asset disposal.

• Appeal on Teis as liquidator (B-281-26) — awaiting ruling.

• Shape Romania reconstruction — plan filed Friday.

• Bailiff enforcement order on the “unclear” claim — expected before the High Court hearing.

• Several secret actions — deliberately not public.

What’s next — timeline

• Today, 25 May 2026: reconstruction appeal filed (R 1426-G), with suspensive-effect request.

• By Friday 29 May: preliminary Romanian reconstruction plan filed.

• Coming days: new developments — some of which will not be pre-announced, by strategy.

• Awaiting: High Court ruling on B-281-26 (Teis as liquidator).

• Before the R 1426-G hearing: bailiff enforcement order against Shape Robotics for the “unclear” claim.

• Tomorrow: live session — I will take your questions on the appeal.

Why I am confident

This is a winning appeal. Not because I want it to be — because the structure of the law makes it so. The Probate Court applied a trial’s standard of proof to a procedure that requires only probability.

The High Court reads the law for a living. When it reads § 11 against the order of 11 May, it will see what we see: a court that demanded final proof of a 217-million-kroner claim at the precise stage where the statute asks only whether the claim probably exists.

And it does. It is registered. It is acknowledged. It was entered by the trustee himself, without objection, under § 97. It rests on promissory notes, a power of attorney, and a written acknowledgement by the reinstated board. By the time the High Court hears it, it will carry an enforcement order.

Reconstruction is a solution that could bring back value — and should bring back value — to the shareholders. There is no way this reconstruction will not be opened by the High Court.

Q.E.D.

Mark-Robert Abraham

Founder, Former CEO, Shareholder — Shape Robotics A/S (now Phase Education A/S)

Director — Shape Robotics Romania S.R.L. (in reconstruction)

CVR 38322656 · ISIN DK0061273125 · Nasdaq Copenhagen: SHAPE (suspended)

Voluntari, Ilfov, Romania · 25 May 2026

Tomorrow: a full live session to take your questions on the appeal. Bring them.

#GameOver #ShapeRobotics #PhaseEducation #WildCEO #NasdaqCopenhagen #Reconstruction #Section11 #R1426G #B28126 #PromissoryNote #KromannReumert #TeisGullitzWormslev #4800Shareholders

Nasdaq Copenhagen: SHAPE · CVR DK38322656 · ISIN DK0061273125

This Company Announcement is published pursuant to the Nasdaq Copenhagen Rulebook, Section 3.1, and concerns the ongoing appeal in case B-281-26 before Østre Landsret, 4. afdeling. The full GAME OVER investigation (70 episodes) is available at substack.wildceo.live.

70 days since the Danish High Court unanimously annulled the bankruptcy. Over the weekend, the Danish financial press decided the real story was that we booked a won lawsuit one quarter too early.

The Story Børsen Chose

Over the weekend, I made the front page of Børsen. Not for the unlawful bankruptcy. Not for the 59 days of trustee malpractice. Not for the missing MAR disclosures. Not for the cancelled EGM.

The story Børsen chose to investigate: that Shape Robotics Romania booked, in Q2 2025, a EUR 24 million claim against the Romanian Ministry of Education — a claim we ultimately won in court in January 2026.

The expert who provided commentary: a man named Lars Kirzner. He has no publicly accessible CV. His PhD appears to date from 1997. He told me, in writing, that his credentials are “available to informed parties.” He hides behind a Karnov Group paywall costing thousands of kroner. He told me he won’t talk to me anymore because I called the behavior communist.

I didn’t call him a communist. I called the behavior communist. There is a difference.

A Romanian recognizes this pattern instantly. We had a name for it: nomenklatura. A class of experts with hidden credentials, opaque relationships, and the unquestioned authority to declare who is correct and who is not. We had a phrase for the documents that justified their authority: “materiale de uz intern” — for internal use only. Available, naturally, only to the informed.

The substance of the story: the Romanian lawsuit was won. Booking it in Q2 2025 as a contingent receivable — when the favorable lower-court ruling existed but appeal windows remained open — is a legitimate accounting question, not a fraud. The judgment became final in January 2026. The receivable is real. Romanian commercial courts have validated it. The asset is now part of the reconstruction estate.

TLDR — The Timeline That Matters

Børsen ran a story this weekend about a EUR 24 million lawsuit between Shape Robotics Romania and the Romanian Ministry of Education. The timeline matters more than the headline.

• Late 2024 — Romanian Ministry of Education refused to award a grant to Shape Robotics Romania.

• End of 2024 — Shape Romania filed a complaint with the Ministry of European Funds (MIPA), the upper ministry. MIPA agreed with our position.

• 2024–2025 — Shape Romania initiated a lawsuit against the Ministry of Education seeking compensation.

• Q2 2025 — Shape Romania booked the claim as a contingent receivable in its financial statements.

• January 2026 — Judgment in favor of Shape Romania. Not appealed by the Ministry. Final.

• 15 May 2026 — Shape Romania entered reconstruction proceedings (see Day 69). The receivable is now an asset of the estate.

Substantively, this is good news. A win. A definitive judgment in favor of the company against a Romanian state actor. A real asset that the special administrator will now work to monetize as part of the Romanian reconstruction plan.

Børsen’s framing was not “Shape Romania wins lawsuit, brings asset to reconstruction.” Børsen’s framing was that we booked the claim too early in Q2 2025, before the judgment became final.

This is the journalistic equivalent of a police officer stopping you at a red light, where you have legally stopped, to inform you that you might have been speeding earlier. He has no evidence. You did not speed. But he wants you to be aware that it could have been a problem.

What Børsen Actually Wrote About Lars Kirzner

The expert Børsen and JP Hus (same media group) keep quoting in Shape Robotics matters is a man named Lars Kirzner. Over the weekend, I had a written exchange with him on LinkedIn. The exchange is public. You can read it.

Here is what I asked him:

1. Who are you? Where is your public CV?

2. What is your expertise? Where are your published works that anyone can read?

3. What is your relationship to Børsen and JP Hus? Do you invoice them? Are you on retainer? Or do you provide commentary informally?

4. Why are you commenting on Romanian commercial law matters? This was a Romanian lawsuit. Are you a Romanian-law expert?

Here is what he answered, paraphrased:

1. His CV is “available to informed parties.”

2. His published work is behind a Karnov Group paywall costing thousands of Danish kroner. His PhD thesis, which I downloaded, appears to be from 1997.

3. He says he has no commercial relationship with the newspapers but offers “free classes” for journalists. Whatever that means.

4. He has no specific Romanian-law expertise that I could identify — but he is commenting on the matter anyway.

Then he told me he would not continue the dialogue because I had called him a communist. I did not call him a communist. I called the behavior communist. There is a critical distinction.

The behaviors I named are:

• Credentials “available only to informed parties.”

• Publications behind paywalls inaccessible to the public.

• Anonymous or unaccountable expertise deployed to attack named individuals.

• Refusal to engage with substantive criticism.

• Demands that the criticized party show respect to the un-credentialed authority.

Romanians recognize these patterns. We lived under them for forty-five years.

I have invited Mr. Kirzner to testify in the Romanian court proceedings regarding Shape Robotics Romania — as a witness, to explain the methodology by which Børsen and JP Hus generate their expert commentary on this case. The invitation is open.

Why a Romanian Sees This Pattern Immediately

Romania was a communist dictatorship from 1947 to 1989. During those forty-two years, the country developed a class of experts whose authority did not rest on publicly verifiable credentials, but on opaque relationships within the party structure. This class was called the nomenklatura. Its members had access to information, materials, and decision-making processes that ordinary citizens did not.

The internal documents that justified the nomenklatura’s authority were classified into categories. The most common was “materiale de uz intern” — materials for internal use only. If you wanted to challenge a decision, you had to cite the materials. If you wanted to cite the materials, you had to be inside the system. If you were inside the system, you would not be challenging the decision.

This is what I recognized in Lars Kirzner’s response: that his CV is “available to informed parties.” That is exactly the nomenklatura’s response. You can question my authority — but only if you are already authorized to question it. Otherwise, please return to your seat.

Romanians left this system in 1989. Many of us paid for the privilege with the lives of family members. We are not nostalgic. We notice the pattern when it appears in countries that consider themselves immune.

I am not calling Denmark a communist country. Denmark is one of the most democratic countries in the world. But specific patterns — the hidden credentials, the paywalls, the unaccountable expertise, the demand for respect without transparency — appear in Denmark with surprising frequency in the way the Danish establishment polices its own.

I notice. I name what I notice. I am told it is rude to notice. It is rude. I do not care.

What the Story Reveals About the System

The Børsen story over the weekend tells you something important about how Danish financial journalism is structured. It is not primarily an inquiry into the truth. It is a maintenance function for a system that has decided certain outcomes in advance.

Consider the questions Børsen did not ask this weekend:

• How did a publicly listed company get bankrupted unlawfully in 10 minutes? — the foundational error of the entire case.

• Why was no certified interpreter present at the 17 April hearing? — ECHR Article 6(3)(e) violation, documented.

• Why was Teis appointed kurator three times in four months? — documented per se conflict of interest.

• Where are the Cision announcements during Teis’s 59 days? — MAR Article 17 violation, DFSA confirmed.

• Why was the EGM cancelled with no announcement? — documented destruction of shareholder rights.

• Why was Sanako Oy bankrupted by its parent’s trustee? — documented destruction of a valuable subsidiary.

• Why did Erhvervsstyrelsen contradict itself on the company’s address? — cases 137907 vs 143927, contradictory in 20 days.

These are the substantive failures of the system that produced the Shape Robotics situation. Børsen has not investigated any of them. Børsen investigated whether a contingent receivable was booked one quarter too early in a Romanian financial statement that no Danish investor has ever read.

The function of the story, in other words, is not to inform. It is to construct, retrospectively, a narrative in which the unlawful bankruptcy was somehow inevitable. “Anyway, they were going to fail.” This is what Romanians recognize as the alibi narrative — the explanation deployed after the fact to make a wrong outcome seem natural.

Nimbochromis — A Considered Reply

The most substantial critique of the weekend came from a Nordnet user, Nimbochromis. Unlike the troll account “Progression,” Nimbochromis writes in good faith. He has read the case. He raises arguments that deserve a proper answer. His critique, in essence: one lawsuit replaces the other, nothing moves forward; little value is left in the company; a reconstruction is the same as starting from scratch; existing shareholders will end up as “alibis and useful idiots.”

This is a serious critique. It deserves a serious response. Let me take each argument in turn.

1) “One lawsuit replaces the other — it doesn’t move forward.” This is empirically wrong. In 70 days: the bankruptcy was annulled by the Eastern High Court (unanimous, 5 March 2026); a Carnegie analyst was sanctioned by the DFSA (MAR Art. 20(1) reprimand, 7 April 2026); DFSA confirmed in writing a MAR Article 17 violation against Teis (24–27 April 2026); the Romanian Ministry of Education lawsuit was won (January 2026, definitive, EUR 24M); the 14 April EGM was held with a 90.6% restructuring mandate and a new board approved (Aurel Nein Chairman, Kim Okkola, Alexandru Ambrozie); the company was renamed to Phase Education A/S (Cision 06-26); Shape Romania reconstruction was opened (15 May 2026); the Brussels Ibis Article 53 certificate was filed with the bailiff; the Ground D filing was submitted to the Eastern High Court (13 May 2026, ruling within days). This is a lot of forward movement. What looks like stasis from outside is, in fact, a deliberate construction of legal positions on multiple fronts.

2) “Not much value left — the IP is not worth the paper it’s written on.” Yes — Chinese competitors are sprinting ahead in educational robotics hardware, with a 1.4-billion-person domestic market and near-zero marginal cost in Shenzhen. But the European public-sector education market is highly protectionist. Chinese hardware does not win EU tenders against European-curriculum-aligned platforms — not because of price, but because of compliance, sovereignty, and political economy. The IP that matters here is not the molded plastic of the Fable robot. It is the multi-year integration into a regulatory environment that Chinese competitors will not match within the relevant time horizon: curricular integration with 27 EU member-state systems, GDPR/DPA/eIDAS compliance, trust relationships with Ministries of Education in five EU countries, the Bechtle framework for Polish schools (EUR 32M, 5 years), the PNRR pipeline in Romania (EUR 120M pending), and a Romanian–Polish–Finnish manufacturing nexus. Our pipeline is not empty: EUR 152M in active opportunities, with EUR 24M already crystallized as a court-validated receivable from the Romanian state.

3) “A reconstruction is starting from scratch — no startup gets listed on day one.” This conflates two different things. A reconstruction is not a newly founded company. It is court-supervised continuation of an existing entity that retains its CVR (DK38322656), its ISIN (DK0061273125), its Nasdaq Copenhagen listing (currently suspended), its IP, contracts, employee base, and customer relationships — and all litigation rights against the parties that caused the damage. The reconstruction plan I will file by end of May proposes restoring the trading status — not starting a new IPO — under Nasdaq Copenhagen Rulebook section 5.3 (resumption of trading following corporate restructuring). The Phase Education A/S that emerges is the same legal entity, with the same shareholders of record, with the asset base reorganized and the debt structure reset.

4) “Mark Abraham will take payment — existing shareholders will be useful idiots.” Of course I expect to be paid for this work. I have a family. I have a daughter. I have rent. I have a life. The idea that I am doing this for moral satisfaction alone is not a serious idea. But compensation has a structure, and the structure I am committed to is: public disclosure in advance (no hidden side arrangements); alignment with shareholder recovery (if shareholders recover 100% of pre-bankruptcy value, I get paid more — if they recover less, I get paid less); subject to formal approval mechanisms (board, AGM, audit committee), not by my unilateral decision; and explicitly not the SAS pattern. The proposed reconstruction converts unsecured creditor claims (DKK 540M) into litigation rights against the parties responsible for the unlawful bankruptcy. Existing shareholders retain their position. New capital comes in through transparent equity issuance ratified by AGM. You are not useful idiots. You are my partners.

One closing observation on Nimbochromis: I disagree with much of his analysis. But I respect the framing. He wrote in his own name, with arguments rather than insults. He distinguished between criticizing me and dismissing me. This is what a good-faith critic looks like. I will engage with him substantively in every episode where he writes. The dialogue I offered Progression is also open to him — live, on camera, with substance.

Scoreboard — Where We Stand Today

• First appeal (K 33-3725-F) — WON. 3 judges, 0 dissent, 5 March 2026.

• DFSA Topholm complaint (25-026420) — WON. Carnegie reprimanded.

• DFSA MAR confirmations, 24–27 April — documented in writing.

• MAR Article 17 supervisory file (26-005434) — open, active.

• Police complaint (0100-83986-10362-26) — open.

• Bar Council case (2026-1127) — open.

• Ministry of Education lawsuit, Romania — WON, January 2026, definitive.

• Shape Romania reconstruction — opened 15 May 2026.

• Brussels Ibis enforcement — filed with bailiff.

• Forced dissolution / new bankruptcy appeals (B-281-26) — awaiting ruling this week.

• Lars Kirzner testimony in Romanian court — invited, awaiting response.

• Børsen substantive investigation of the unlawful bankruptcy — still waiting.

What’s Next — Timeline

• 18 May 2026 (today) — Episode 70 published. Lars Kirzner invited to Romanian court testimony.

• This week — Eastern High Court ruling expected on B-281-26 (Teis as liquidator appeal).

• By 22 May — Brussels Ibis Article 53 certificate from Romanian bailiff.

• By end of May — Romanian reconstruction plan filed (14-day deadline from 15 May opening).

• June — Creditor vote on Romanian reconstruction plan.

The Real Question

I want to leave you with the question that Børsen, JP Hus, and every Danish financial journalist of consequence has refused to ask for 70 days. How is it possible, in 2026, in Denmark, for a publicly listed company on Nasdaq Copenhagen — with 4,800 shareholders across 17 countries and 700 employees across three continents — to be declared bankrupt unlawfully in a 10-minute hearing, and for that failure to receive zero substantive journalistic investigation in the Danish financial press?

The answer, to a Romanian, is depressingly familiar. The system has decided what the outcome should be. The journalism then assembles, after the fact, the narrative that justifies the outcome. The expert commentary then reinforces the narrative. The criticism is then dismissed as the noise of someone who does not understand how things are done here.

I’m not calling Denmark a communist country. I’m naming the patterns I see. The real question is: how is it possible for a publicly listed company to go bankrupt unlawfully in 2026 Denmark?

Q.E.D.

—

Mark-Robert Abraham

Founder · Former CEO · Shareholder

Shape Robotics A/S (now Phase Education A/S)

Director · Shape Robotics Romania SRL (in reconstruction)

CVR 38322656 · ISIN DK0061273125 · Nasdaq Copenhagen: SHAPE (suspended)

Voluntari, Ilfov, Romania · 18 May 2026

Open invitation: Mr. Lars Kirzner — the invitation to appear as a witness in the Romanian commercial court proceedings on Shape Robotics Romania remains active. Your CV need not be made public. The court has its own standards for credentialing witnesses. We look forward to your testimony.

#GameOver #ShapeRobotics #PhaseEducation #WildCEO #NasdaqCopenhagen #Børsen #LarsKirzner #Nomenklatura #DanishMedia #B281–26 #KromannReumert #4800Shareholders #PressFailure #Romania

On 16 May 2026, Børsen ran a piece titled “Robotselskab bogførte usikre millioner – uden et ord til investorerne”

2026 05 16 Børsen Robotselskab Bogførte Usikre Millioner – Uden Et Ord Til Investorerne

655KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Translation:

Borsen Full En

2.21MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

— “Robot company booked uncertain millions, without a word to investors.” The piece, amplified the next day on LinkedIn by Lars Kiertzner (statsautoriseret revisor, PhD, the headline expert Børsen quoted), calls our Q2 2025 recognition of DKK 41.9 million “fresh” — Danish accounting slang for reckless.

I’d like to keep this short. Here is what Børsen and Kiertzner forgot to mention, or chose not to.

The court has already ruled. In our favour.

Romanian court file 200000000445775. Public. Verifiable. Open it yourself:

👉 portal.just.ro/2/SitePages/Dosar.aspx?id_dosar=200000000445775&id_inst=2

Shape Robotics Romania SRL won. The Romanian court found that the September 2024 rejection of our PNRR application Shaping Techducators was unlawful. The win is not “alleged.” It is on the record. Børsen mentions this in passing. Kiertzner waves it away with the word “allegedly being appealed.”

Allegedly by whom? On what timeline? With what suspensive effect? The post does not say. Because saying it would collapse the argument.

Where the recognition actually lives

Here is the part the “outside accounting user” missed. The DKK 41.9 million was not booked in Denmark on a hunch. It was recognised in Shape Robotics Romania SRL — in Romania, under Romanian accounting law — based on a formal administrative act of the Romanian Ministry of Investments and European Projects (MIPE).

Raport Verificare Nr

316KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Translation:

Mipe Full En

3.42MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

That act is not folklore. It is Raport de verificare nr. 90449/05.12.2024, signed by Director General Laurențiu Alin Crîmu, head of DGMMRR (the directorate that manages PNRR controls and recoveries). The report:

• Examines the rejection of the Shaping Techducators application.

• Finds the evaluation process flawed (”vicierea procesului de evaluare”).

• Confirms that the eligibility grid did not clearly define accreditation as a separate criterion (Ghid solicitant pct. 5.8) — the very reason for the rejection.

• Orders a re-evaluation of applications rejected exclusively on that ground.

• Recommends an urgent rewrite of the calls in progress to prevent similar situations.

That is not a “compensation claim.” That is the management authority of Romania’s recovery and resilience mechanism formally requalifying the file. The Romanian subsidiary recognised revenue on the basis of that act, audited under Romanian rules. Then — and only then — the result rolled up the consolidation chain to the Danish parent.

Denmark’s job is IFRS 10. That’s it.

Shape Robotics A/S is the Danish parent. Under IFRS 10 — Consolidated Financial Statements — its job is to consolidate the audited figures of its controlled subsidiary, Shape Robotics Romania SRL, line by line, after intra‑group eliminations.

The question of whether the underlying revenue was correctly recognised is answered in Romania, on Romanian books, against the Romanian administrative act and Romanian court file. Not in a LinkedIn post written from the outside by someone who never saw either document.

If the recognition is sound in Romania — and it is, twice over: administratively by MIPE on 5 December 2024, and judicially by the Romanian court in January 2026 — then the consolidated Danish figure is, by IFRS 10, sound.

This is plumbing, not philosophy.

On “very likely to birds on the roof”

Kiertzner asks the audience to imagine an outcome range from “very likely” to “fugle på taget” (birds on the roof — Danish for “pie in the sky”). It is a nice rhetorical figure. It is also the wrong test.

The recognition was not an IAS 37 contingent asset waiting on a courtroom miracle. It was revenue tied to:

1. A formal MIPE verification report (5 December 2024) flagging the rejection as unlawful and ordering re-evaluation.

2. A delivered scope of services and teacher training, with documentation.

3. Auditor Beierholm signing the H1 2025 report without reservation.

That clears IFRS 15 (”probable” — more likely than not) and IAS 20 (”reasonable assurance”). It does not need to clear “virtually certain,” because it is not a contingent asset. It is a revenue line backed by an administrative act and delivered performance.

The January 2026 court ruling did not create the recognition. It confirmed it.

On the comma “allegedly appealed”

A Danish PhD in accounting writes “allegedly being appealed by the relevant Romanian ministry” and treats it as a fact heavy enough to recharacterize an entire revenue line.

I am not a PhD, but I know how to read a court portal. The file number is above. Anyone — Børsen, Kiertzner, FSR – Danske Revisorer, anyone — can verify the procedural status in under a minute. Until that verification happens, “allegedly” is not analysis. It is a hedge.

What “fresh” actually means here

Booking revenue when:

• the management authority of Romania’s PNRR has issued a verification report identifying the rejection as flawed,

• the underlying services have been delivered,

• the statutory auditor signs off without reservation,

• and the case is later won in court,

is not “fresh.” It is correct. The only thing fresh in this story is the speed at which a Danish newspaper and a Danish accountant were willing to publish a verdict on a Romanian administrative file neither of them appears to have read.

The receipts are below. I’ll let them speak.

— Mark Abraham Former CEO, Shape Robotics A/S Bucharest, 17 May 2026

Receipts (all public):

• Court file (Romania, Tribunal București): portal.just.ro/2/SitePages/Dosar.aspx?id_dosar=200000000445775&id_inst=2

• MIPE Verification Report no. 90449/05.12.2024 (full English translation: see appendix below)

• Børsen article, 16 May 2026 (full English translation: see appendix below)

• Shape Robotics H1 2025 Interim Report (Cision/Nasdaq, audited by Beierholm, no reservations)

• Østre Landsret, case K 3337/25‑F (5 March 2026 — first bankruptcy in Nasdaq Copenhagen history annulled, unanimous)

• Finanstilsynet formal reprimand against Lars Topholm (Carnegie) for market abuse involving Shape Robotics

🏛️ Nasdaq Copenhagen: SHAPE · CVR DK38322656 · ISIN DK0061273125

---

Today I Did Something I Have Avoided Since 2017. Shape Robotics Romania Has Entered Reconstruction Proceedings. The Battlefield Has Just Doubled In Size.

🔴 GAME OVER — Day 69: Romania Enters the Battlefield

This Company Announcement is published pursuant to the Nasdaq Copenhagen Rulebook, Section 3.1, and concerns developments in appeal case B-281-26 before Østre Landsret, 4. afdeling, and parallel cross-border proceedings in Romania under Brussels Ibis Regulation (EU) 1215/2012.

The full GAME OVER investigation (69 episodes) is available at substack.wildceo.live.

Some good news. Some sad news. And a 1v1 that someone refused.

⚡ TL;DR

> Today I filed for reconstruction proceedings for Shape Robotics Romania SRL. This was a personal decision. It was painful. It was also necessary.

This is reconstruction, not bankruptcy. Under Romanian Law 85/2014, reorganizare is the priority procedure. The court approved opening. From Monday, Shape Romania operates under a court-appointed special administrator, with me remaining as company director. We have 14 days to file the reconstruction plan.

Why this matters for the Danish appeal: Romanian reconstruction = an actively producing, legally protected operational entity in an EU jurisdiction that recognizes the parent’s restructuring rights. Brussels Ibis Regulation 1215/2012 creates automatic recognition of Romanian civil and commercial enforcement orders in Denmark. Teis cannot block Romanian proceedings from Copenhagen.

Also today I officially filed the documents with Bailiff (executor judecătoresc) for Brussels Ibis enforcement of the promissory note that the Maritime Court found “lacked sufficient clarity” on 11 May. Next week, that same claim arrives at the Eastern High Court with an EU enforcement order attached.

The 1v1 challenge to Nordnet troll “Progression”: Refused. He prefers flooding the zone over face-to-face dialogue.

The deeper point: Teis is fighting on one battlefield — Maritime Court Copenhagen. I am now fighting on three: Eastern High Court Copenhagen · Romanian commercial court · Brussels Ibis enforcement. Teis defends in Danish. We attack in three languages.

---

📢 The Sad News — Shape Robotics Romania Enters Reconstruction

I want to say this clearly, because I need to say it to myself as much as to you.

Today, 15 May 2026, I filed for reconstruction proceedings for Shape Robotics Romania SRL at the competent Romanian commercial court. The proceedings were opened. From Monday, Shape Robotics Romania is under court-supervised reconstruction (reorganizare judiciară) under Law 85/2014.

This is the company I built from zero starting in 2017. The flagship deployment of Romanian educational robotics. Tens of thousands of students across Romanian schools benefited from our Fable and STEAM platforms. The PNRR contracts — over EUR 120 million in pipeline value — were going to be executed through this entity.

I did not want this. I have to be honest about that. This was not a strategic move from a position of strength. This was a forced response to the damage that Teis Gullitz-Wormslev’s 59-day unlawful trusteeship caused to the operational continuity of the entire Shape Robotics group.

> It’s sad for me personally because it’s my work, my family’s work that has been part of this journey. Hundreds of thousands of students are not benefiting from the solutions that we have promoted in the country — the robots.

— Live recording, 15 May 2026

What reconstruction means under Romanian law

Reconstruction in Romania is not the same as bankruptcy. Romanian Law 85/2014 places reorganization (reorganizare) as the default and priority procedure. Bankruptcy (faliment) is reserved for cases where reorganization is demonstrably impossible.

📊 Reconstruction phases:

- 🟢 Opening — Approved today, 15 May 2026. Effective Monday.

👨‍⚖️ Special administrator appointed — Court-supervised, working with existing management. This week.

📄 Reconstruction plan due — 14 days from opening.

🗳️ Creditor vote — Under judicial supervision, following 30 days.

🚀 Plan execution — Operations continue under protection, up to 3 years.

This means:

- I remain in operational charge as company director, working alongside the court-appointed special administrator.

Operations continue. Customers continue to be served. PNRR projects continue to progress. Employees continue at their posts.

Creditors are protected. No individual creditor can force liquidation. The reconstruction plan must be approved by creditor majority and ratified by the court.

The reasons for insolvency must be investigated. Romanian law requires the special administrator to determine who caused the insolvency. The answer is documented: the 59 days of unlawful Danish trusteeship.

---

✅ The Good News — This Helps Everything

I want to be direct here. The Romanian reconstruction is sad for me personally, but it is transformative for the legal case.

1️⃣ We capture an EU-recognized operational entity

Shape Romania, under court-supervised reconstruction, is a fully recognized EU commercial entity in active operation. Under EU corporate law, this entity has legal personality, contractual capacity, and the right to pursue claims against third parties — including Danish-domiciled parties.

Under Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels Ibis), civil and commercial decisions in any EU member state — including Romanian commercial court decisions — are automatically recognized and enforceable in any other member state, including Denmark. No exequatur required (Article 39).

This is the key. Denmark has opted out of EU Regulation 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings, so Romanian insolvency decisions don’t automatically apply to Danish entities. But Brussels Ibis covers civil and commercial claims — and Brussels Ibis applies to Denmark.

2️⃣ The promissory note now has EU enforcement teeth

Remember the 11 May 2026 Maritime Court hearing? The reconstruction petition was rejected because, in the words of the judge, the Romanian promissory note “lacked sufficient clarity.”

Today, I filed the documents with the Romanian bailiff (executor judecătoresc) to obtain a Brussels Ibis Article 53 certificate — the official EU enforcement form that converts the Romanian court’s validation of the promissory note into a directly enforceable order in Denmark.

> 🔥 PROOF. A Brussels Ibis Article 53 certificate, attached to a Danish appeal pleading, is not “insufficient clarity.” It is an EU enforcement order. The Eastern High Court cannot dismiss it on subjective grounds.

When this lands at Østre Landsret next week, the reconstruction appeal acquires a documentary weapon the Maritime Court did not see. The promissory note’s enforceability is no longer a matter of Danish judicial discretion. It is an EU certified instrument.

3️⃣ The investigation now happens in two jurisdictions

In Denmark, under the bankruptcy proceedings of 11 May, the kurator must investigate who caused Shape Robotics A/S to become bankrupt. The kurator is Teis Gullitz-Wormslev. Teis verifying Teis.

In Romania, under the reconstruction proceedings opened today, the special administrator must investigate who caused Shape Robotics Romania SRL to require reconstruction. The special administrator is not Teis Gullitz-Wormslev. He is a court-appointed Romanian insolvency professional with no ties to Kromann Reumert, no protection under Danish bankruptcy law, and a statutory duty to identify and pursue claims against responsible parties.

The Romanian special administrator will find, in approximately 14 days, that the cause of Shape Romania’s distress is documented:

1. The 6 January 2026 unlawful bankruptcy of the Danish parent.

The 59 days of Teis’s trusteeship — zero MAR disclosures, Sanako Oy destruction, EGM cancellation, IRIS deal foreclosed.

The cascade of operational consequences for Shape Romania, including blocked banking, frozen contracts, and lost confidence.

The Romanian special administrator has the legal authority to pursue civil claims for this damage. Against Teis personally. Across borders. Through Brussels Ibis.

---

⚔️ The Three-Front Strategy

Let me make this picture as clear as possible.

🌍 Front 1 — Østre Landsret B-281-26: Appeal on appointment of Teis as liquidator, dissolution, new bankruptcy. Ruling expected 18–25 May. Controlled by Eastern High Court, 4th Division.

🇦 Front 2 — Romanian reconstruction: Shape Romania under judicial reorganizare. 14-day plan filing. Special administrator investigates causes. Controlled by Romanian commercial court / special administrator.

🇪🇺 Front 3 — Brussels Ibis enforcement: Promissory note converted to EU enforcement order. Next week arrives at Østre Landsret as Bilag. EU regulation, automatic recognition.

Each front operates independently. Each front has its own timeline, its own remedies, its own counterparties. Teis cannot fight all three simultaneously with the resources he has at Kromann Reumert. He cannot block Romanian proceedings from Copenhagen. He cannot challenge Brussels Ibis recognition in Denmark — it is automatic under Article 36 of the Regulation.

What Teis can do is what he has been doing: bill the Danish bankruptcy estate for the cost of defending himself in Copenhagen. Every hour he spends, the creditors lose money. The damage compounds. This is asymmetric warfare with EU legal infrastructure as the asymmetry.

---

🥊 The 1v1 — Progression Refused

Yesterday, after Day 68 went live with the two DFSA emails, I went back to Nordnet and saw that the troll account “Progression” was still active. So I made him an offer that no honest critic could refuse.

> Direct 1v1. Me versus Progression. Live. On camera. With identity disclosed. Public Q&A. Show me you got the cojones, bro.

His response: he wrote about my integrity, accused me of paradoxical statements about MAR, and tagged some of my supporters (Peter, Jørgen, Karsten) with questions designed to bog them down in side discussions. He did not accept the 1v1.

Let me restate the offer publicly: I will go live, on camera, with full identity disclosed, in a 1-on-1 dialogue with any person who has substantively challenged Shape Robotics’ position publicly. Username Progression. Username Regression. Username whoever you really are. I will give you 30 minutes of my time. I will answer every factual question you have. I will defend every legal position I have taken on this Substack. I will let you press me as hard as you want.

You don’t accept. Why? Because in a live, face-to-face dialogue, the documents — the DFSA emails, the High Court ruling, the Tivi.fi/Sanako reporting, the Cision 06-26 EGM resolution, the Børsen email of 21 April, the Konkurslov §110 chain — cannot be deflected by flooding the zone with 100 short comments. They must be addressed directly. And you cannot address them directly without conceding.

The offer remains open. The link to wildceo.live is in the previous episode.

---

📖 Reading For the Weekend — The Forever War

If you want to understand the mental model I am operating with about the Danish system, read Joe Haldeman’s The Forever War (1974). Read its companion Forever Peace (1997). Haldeman wrote a science fiction novel that captured, with eerie precision, the trajectory of societies that over-optimize for predictability and protection at the cost of innovation and chaos.

What I have come to understand — having spent the last 67 days inside the Danish legal-administrative apparatus — is that Denmark has built a system that is excellent for being an employee. It is stable, predictable, fair to those who play within its rules. But it is also numb. When a publicly listed company is bankrupted in 10 minutes through a procedure designed for coffee shops, the system does not see the problem. The procedure was followed. Procedure equals justice. End of inquiry.

This is the failure of the system. Not a failure of any individual. Not corruption. Not malice. Numbness.

> People are just numb. They do not want to fight. They do not want to really speak up. A little bit of spiciness, a little bit of Latin blood, a little bit of fighting spirit is required — because the society has frozen somewhere.

— Live recording, 15 May 2026

I am not Danish. I came to this country in 2017 to build a company. I have no obligation to be numb. I have every obligation, as the founder of a Nasdaq-listed company that 4,800 shareholders trusted with their savings, to refuse to be numb.

That is why I am fighting on three fronts. That is why I am writing this Substack daily. That is why I am here, every evening at 17:00 Romania time, to take questions, to update the community, to refuse silence.

---

🏆 Scoreboard — Where We Stand Today

- ✅ First appeal K 3337/25-F — WON. 3 judges, 0 dissent, 5 March 2026.

✅ DFSA Topholm complaint 25-026420 — WON. Carnegie reprimanded.

📝 DFSA MAR confirmations 24–27 April — DOCUMENTED IN WRITING.

🔍 MAR Article 17 supervisory file 26-005434 — OPEN / ACTIVE.

👮 Police complaint 0100-83986-10362-26 — OPEN.

⚖️ Bar Council case 2026-1127 — OPEN.

📄 Forced dissolution ruling of 17 April — APPEAL FILED 13 MAY.

📄 New bankruptcy ruling of 11 May — APPEAL FILED 13 MAY.

💥 Ground D institutional bypass — THE KILLER ARGUMENT.

🇦 Shape Romania reconstruction — OPENED TODAY 15 MAY.

🇪🇺 Brussels Ibis enforcement — FILED WITH BAILIFF TODAY.

🥊 1v1 with Progression troll — REFUSED. DEFAULT WIN.

📅 What’s Next — Timeline

- 🔴 15 May 2026 (today) — Shape Romania reconstruction opened. Bailiff documents filed for Brussels Ibis.

📆 Monday 18 May — Special administrator takes over alongside management.

⚖️ 18–25 May 2026 — Eastern High Court ruling expected on B-281-26 appeal.

📜 22 May 2026 — Brussels Ibis Article 53 certificate expected from Romanian bailiff.

🏛️ Week of 25 May — Brussels Ibis certificate filed at Østre Landsret as supplementary evidence.

📑 End of May — Romanian reconstruction plan filed (14-day deadline from opening).

🗳️ June — Creditor vote on Romanian reconstruction plan.

🔭 3–4 weeks — Full clarity on multi-front strategy timeline.

---

🧠 Why I Did This Today

I want to address something head-on, because some of you have asked it privately. Why open Romanian reconstruction now, when we are about to win the Danish appeal?

The answer is honest and pragmatic. The Danish appeal will be decided by the Eastern High Court within days — but the result is not the only thing that matters. Even if we win, Shape Robotics A/S returns to a state where 700 employees, 4,800 shareholders, and 152 million euros in pipeline value need to be reorganized in operational reality.

Romania is where the largest operational reality lives. The PNRR contracts. The deployed customer base. The product-market fit demonstrated in tens of thousands of classrooms. If we win the Danish appeal, the Romanian reconstruction gives the recovered Phase Education A/S an immediately operational EU vehicle to deploy from. It is the asset platform for the next chapter.

If, in some catastrophic scenario, we lose the Danish appeal, the Romanian reconstruction is the lifeboat. The operating company survives. The product survives. The customer relationships survive. The employees keep their jobs. The IP stays under our control.

Either way, today’s filing is insurance. Or, if you prefer, it is offense disguised as insurance.

> For the shareholders, for the investors, it’s for sure good news. For Teis, it’s the beginning of the end. It’s the end of his career. He chose to do this. He will pay for it. It’s just a matter of time.

— Live recording, 15 May 2026

---

🔚 Closing

> I’m not crazy. I guarantee you I’m not crazy.

I’m just coming from another world — from another place where things have meaning and where people think a lot about the rule sets and try to understand what is good and what is bad for their collective.

It is sad for me personally because it’s my work, my family’s work that has been part of this journey.

For Teis, it’s the beginning of the end.

We have already won. It’s just a matter of time.

Q.E.D. ✌️

---

Mark-Robert Abraham

Founder · Former CEO · Shareholder — Shape Robotics A/S (now Phase Education A/S)

Director — Shape Robotics Romania SRL (in reconstruction)

CVR 38322656 · ISIN DK0061273125 · Nasdaq Copenhagen: SHAPE (suspended)

Voluntari, Ilfov, Romania — 15 May 2026

---

📖 Reading recommendation for the weekend: Joe Haldeman — The Forever War (1974) and Forever Peace (1997). Science fiction about a society that loses the ability to fight for what matters. A useful lens through which to view modern Denmark.

---

#GameOver #ShapeRobotics #PhaseEducation #WildCEO #NasdaqCopenhagen #Romania #Reconstruction #BrusselsIbis #EU1215_2012 #B281_2026 #KromannReumert #TeisGullitzWormslev #ThreeFronts #4800Shareholders #ForeverWar

Nasdaq Copenhagen: SHAPE | CVR: DK38322656 | ISIN: DK0061273125

The full GAME OVER investigation — 68 episodes — is available at substack.wildceo.live.

68 days since the Danish High Court unanimously annulled the bankruptcy. 1 day since I filed Bemærkninger nr. 2 + Ground D Supplement. And one Nordnet troll later, here is what I want you to remember.

🧭 TL;DR

📨 Yesterday, a thread opened on Nordnet about the three things Teis did during the 59 days of unlawful trusteeship. Almost 100 comments. One particularly persistent troll — username “Progression” — kept asking: “Where is the proof Teis cancelled the EGM? Where is the proof he had any MAR obligation?”

📎 Today, I am putting both proofs in this episode — in PNG form, taken live from my Outlook mailbox. Two emails from Viktor Stidsen Katic, Legal Officer at the Danish FSA’s Capital Market Division, confirming in writing:

“As long as the company has shares admitted to trading on Nasdaq Copenhagen, the requirements in the Market Abuse Regulation still apply to the company.” — 24 April 2026

“The issuer’s obligations under MAR continue to apply regardless of any suspension and the reason behind it.” — 27 April 2026

🌱 The bigger argument: Today’s bankruptcy is the fruit of the poisonous tree. The reason for the second bankruptcy of 11 May 2026 is that the first bankruptcy of 6 January 2026 — the one the High Court already ruled unlawful — was never re-adjudicated. Teis broke the company during the 59 days. Today, Teis investigates Teis. Pardon my English.

$$\text{Unlawful bankruptcy} \Rightarrow \text{Teis as kurator} \Rightarrow \text{59 days destruction} \Rightarrow \text{Today’s bankruptcy}$$

🎯 Teis verifying Teis. The curator who must determine why Shape Robotics became bankrupt today is the same person who caused it to become bankrupt today.

📨 The Proof, Live From My Outlook

You wanted proof, troll. Here is proof.

Confirmation #1 — Friday, 24 April 2026, 09:57 CET

From: Viktor Stidsen Katic, Legal Officer, Capital Market Division, Danish Financial Supervisory Authority Re: J.nr. 25-026876 — Shape Robotics A/S — MAR Obligations Inquiry

“As long as the company has shares admitted to trading on Nasdaq Copenhagen, the requirements in the Market Abuse Regulation still apply to the company.“

Confirmation #2 — Monday, 27 April 2026, 11:27 CET

Same officer. Same case. Three days later. Even more explicit:

“The issuer’s obligations under MAR continue to apply regardless of any suspension and the reason behind it. I hope this answers your question.”

Two emails. In writing. From the regulator. Case J.nr. 25-026876. Not interpretation. Not opinion. Not legal speculation. The Danish FSA’s Legal Officer for the Capital Market Division writing in his official capacity. Strandgade 29, 1401 Copenhagen K. Phone +45 21 63 43 42.

This means:

📅 6 Jan – 5 Mar 2026 (Teis as kurator, unlawful) → ✅ MAR YES · Cision announcements: 0

📅 17 Apr – 11 May 2026 (Teis as liquidator) → ✅ MAR YES · Cision announcements: 0

📅 11 May 2026 – today (Teis as kurator, again) → ✅ MAR YES · Cision announcements: 0

PROOF. Across three appointments and four months, Teis Gullitz-Wormslev — trustee of a Nasdaq Copenhagen-listed issuer with documented MAR obligations under both Article 17 and Article 20 — has issued zero Cision announcements. The DFSA has confirmed in writing, twice, that the obligation was active throughout. The MAR violation file is open under J.nr. 26-005434.

🌳 Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

This is the doctrine that captures the entire case. It exists in every common-law system. It exists, by analogous reasoning, in every civil-law system. It is common sense before it is law.

The doctrine:

If the tree is poisoned, the fruit it produces is also poisoned.

In our case:

• The poisonous tree = the unlawful bankruptcy of 6 January 2026, annulled by the Eastern High Court on 5 March 2026.

• The fruit = the bankruptcy of 11 May 2026, which exists only because the original bankruptcy created the conditions that made today’s bankruptcy possible.

The chain of causation

🔴 Cause: Unlawful bankruptcy of 6 January 2026 → Effect: Teis appointed kurator

🔴 Cause: Teis as kurator for 59 days → Effect: DKK 199M asset write-down, Sanako bankruptcy, EGM cancelled, IRIS deal foreclosed, zero MAR disclosures

🔴 Cause: 5 March 2026 annulment → Effect: Teis’s mandate lapsed, but damage already done

🔴 Cause: Sø- og Handelsretten refuses to re-adjudicate → Effect: Remitted case still pending 68 days later

🔴 Cause: Forced dissolution of 17 April → Effect: Teis appointed liquidator (second time)

🔴 Cause: Teis as liquidator opposes the reconstruction → Effect: “Insufficient clarity” — vague Danish-law standard

🔴 Cause: 11 May 2026 reconstruction rejected, bankruptcy stamped → Effect: Teis appointed kurator again (third time)

🎯 The reason cited for today’s bankruptcy: Operational and financial damage caused by Teis himself during the 59-day unlawful period.

“The second bankruptcy is driven 100% by Thais. Thais has decided as liquidator — although, again, his position is under appeal, so he will be changed as liquidator in the next week — to bankrupt the company again. And by being changed as liquidator, all his decisions to cause the second bankruptcy will be cancelled also.”

— Live recording, 13 May 2026 (Episode 67)

This is not the same bankruptcy. The first one was annulled. The second one is a separate, independent legal proceeding with a separate underlying cause. And the underlying cause is the damage Teis did during the first one.

🪞 Teis Verifying Teis

This is the part that I want every shareholder to internalize.

Under Konkurslov § 113, a kurator’s duty is to investigate why the company became bankrupt. The kurator must identify the parties whose actions caused the bankruptcy and pursue claims against them on behalf of the creditors. This is the basic raison d’être of bankruptcy administration.

So: who caused today’s bankruptcy?

The kurator who must answer this question, by court appointment of 11 May 2026, is Teis Gullitz-Wormslev.

The answer to the question — based on the documentary record, the DFSA confirmations, the Sanako Tivi.fi reporting, the cancelled EGM, the failed IRIS deal — is Teis Gullitz-Wormslev.

“The person that verifies who is to blame for the second bankruptcy — and by the way, that person is Thais verifying Thais — is exactly the situation in which we are today. And of course, this will not remain like this.”

— Live recording, 13 May 2026

This is the structural absurdity at the heart of Shape Robotics’ current legal status. The kurator investigating who caused the bankruptcy is the same person who caused the bankruptcy. He is the prosecutor and the defendant. He bills the bankruptcy estate for the cost of investigating his own malpractice. The conflict of interest is not subtle. It is total.

Ground C of my appeal — filed yesterday, 13 May 2026 — asks the Eastern High Court to recognize this per se conflict and remove him. The mechanism of removal will, if Ground C succeeds, also unwind every decision Teis has made as liquidator since 17 April 2026, including the decision to oppose the reconstruction that led to today’s bankruptcy.

In other words: if the appeal succeeds, the entire chain collapses backwards. The bankruptcy of 11 May 2026 was caused by the liquidation of 17 April 2026 was caused by the unlawful bankruptcy of 6 January 2026. Annul the original at the High Court → unwind the chain in reverse → restore the company.

🤡 A Note on the Nordnet Troll

Yesterday’s discussion on Nordnet — over 100 comments — was dominated by a user calling himself “Progression,” who I have started calling Regression, because his arguments regress with each comment toward the pit of stupidity.

His central argument: “Where is the proof Teis cancelled the EGM? Where is the proof he had MAR obligations? Show me documents.”

I have just shown you the documents.

You can see them above, in PNG form, taken live from my Outlook. The DFSA Legal Officer for the Capital Market Division has confirmed the MAR obligation in writing, twice, in correspondence dated 24 April and 27 April 2026. Both emails are referenced under DFSA case number 25-026876, which is the active supervisory file on Shape Robotics MAR compliance.

The EGM cancellation? I refer you to the absence of an EGM on 22 January 2026 — which was the date scheduled in Cision Announcement 01-26 of 1 January 2026. There was no announcement of postponement. There was no announcement of cancellation. There was simply no EGM. An EGM that does not occur on its scheduled date has, by definition, been cancelled. The cancellation was performed by the only person with the legal authority to cancel it during that period: the kurator. The kurator was Teis.

“You idiot — Thais didn’t say anything about anything. That is the point. He had MAR obligations. He issued zero announcements. The cancellation is the absence of the announcement.”

— Live recording, 14 May 2026

This is the level of discourse Nordnet hosts. I am offering, going forward, to host meaningful discussion here, on this Substack, where I can respond directly to comments. If you want to argue, argue here. If you want to flood the zone, flood Nordnet — but understand that the rest of us will have the final laugh, because the documents are real, the regulator has confirmed the obligation in writing, and the case is now before the Eastern High Court.

📊 Scoreboard — Where We Stand Today

✅ First appeal (K 3337/25-F) → WON — 3 judges, 0 dissent, 5 March 2026

✅ DFSA Topholm complaint (25-026420) → WON — Carnegie analyst reprimanded

✅ DFSA MAR confirmation #1 (24 April) → CONFIRMED IN WRITING

✅ DFSA MAR confirmation #2 (27 April) → CONFIRMED IN WRITING

⚙️ MAR Article 17 supervisory file (J.nr. 26-005434) → OPEN — ACTIVE INVESTIGATION

⚙️ Police complaint (0100-83986-10362-26) → OPEN

⚙️ Bar Council case (2026-1127) → OPEN

⚖️ Forced dissolution ruling of 17 April → APPEAL FILED YESTERDAY

⚖️ New bankruptcy ruling of 11 May → APPEAL FILED YESTERDAY

🎯 Ground D — institutional bypass → THE KILLER ARGUMENT

🤡 Nordnet troll “Progression” → EXPOSED

🔜 What’s Next

📆 14 May 2026 (today) → Episode 68 published with DFSA email evidence

📆 ~15–18 May 2026 → Eastern High Court 4th Division reading the appeal

📆 ~18–25 May 2026 → Ruling expected — appeal on appointment of Teis as liquidator

📆 Next week → Romanian-law surprises arriving — “Thais will have a very beautiful week, I guarantee you”

⚖️ Three pending appeals: (1) Teis as liquidator. (2) Restructuring rejection. (3) New bankruptcy.

🇷🇴 What’s Coming From Romania

In tomorrow’s episode (Day 69), I will explain in detail something I touched on briefly in today’s live recording: why being Romanian creates structural disadvantages in this Danish proceeding. The interpreter issue from 17 April is just the most visible symptom. The deeper pattern is that a non-Danish founder of a Danish company must prove things three times over before the court takes them seriously.

But also — and this is the punchline — Romania has, in the last twelve months, modernized its Bankruptcy Act in ways that directly enable cross-border action against trustees who damage the value of subsidiaries. Sanako Oy was Finnish, but the parent’s restructuring is now subject to Romanian-recognized mechanisms via Phase Education A/S’s new operational nexus.

Translation: Teis will be receiving documents next week from a jurisdiction he is not licensed to practice in.

This will be fun.

✊ Why I Wrote This Today

The Nordnet troll asked for proof. I have given the proof. Now anyone who participates in the Shape Robotics conversation on Nordnet, on Børsen, on FT Alphaville, or on any other forum, has access to:

• ✅ Two DFSA emails confirming MAR obligations during suspension, liquidation, bankruptcy

• ✅ The full 70-page appeal filed yesterday at the Eastern High Court

• ✅ The 27 exhibits referenced in the appeal

• ✅ Cision Announcement 01-26 documenting the original EGM scheduled for 22 January

• ✅ The Tivi.fi reporting confirming the Sanako Oy bankruptcy of 5 February 2026

• ✅ The DFSA reprimand of Lars Topholm of 7 April 2026

If you participate in this conversation without referencing this evidence, you are not arguing in good faith. You are flooding the zone. And the rest of us are documenting it.

🔚 Closing

“The first bankruptcy was unlawful. The second bankruptcy is the fruit of the first. Pardon my English.”

“Teis verifying Teis. This will not remain like this.”

“The cancellation is the absence of the announcement.”

“All the people on the Titanic were mostly healthy. They were not lucky. Let’s be both.”

Q.E.D.

Mark-Robert Abraham Founder · Former CEO · Shareholder Shape Robotics A/S (now Phase Education A/S) CVR 38322656 · ISIN DK0061273125 Nasdaq Copenhagen: SHAPE (suspended)

Voluntari, Ilfov, Romania — 14 May 2026

Attached: Both DFSA email screenshots (Confirmations #1 and #2). Live evidence from my Outlook, J.nr. 25-026876.

#GameOver #ShapeRobotics #PhaseEducation #WildCEO #NasdaqCopenhagen #MAR #Article17 #DFSA #PoisonousTree #B281_2026 #KromannReumert #TeisGullitzWormslev #RuleOfLaw #4800Shareholders

Get more from Mark Abraham | WildCEO in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  TL;DR — TODAY'S RULING                                         │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                                 │
│  Reconstruction petition: REJECTED on the merits                │
│  Bankruptcy petition: GRANTED                                   │
│  Liquidator continues: Teis Gullitz-Wormslev                    │
│                                                                 │
│  ──────────────────────────────────────────────                 │
│                                                                 │
│  Total hearing time .................. ~10 minutes              │
│  Judge speaking ........................ ~5 minutes             │
│  All parties combined .................. ~5 minutes             │
│  Time we had to rebut Teis's claims ..... 0 minutes             │
│                                                                 │
│  ──────────────────────────────────────────────                 │
│                                                                 │
│  This is NOT a definitive decision.                             │
│  Appeal already in motion. Final answer at High Court.          │
│                                                                 │
│  The promissory note that the first instance "did not           │
│  understand" is already a valid registered claim in Romania.    │
│  In ~6 weeks we will return to Østre Landsret with a            │
│  Romanian title executoriu, recognized in Denmark under         │
│  EU Regulation 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis).                      │
│                                                                 │
│  ──────────────────────────────────────────────                 │
│                                                                 │
│  IT IS GOOD THAT RECONSTRUCTION DID NOT OPEN TODAY.             │
│  Teis attempted to install his own accountant inside it.        │
│  We were not ready for hostile reconstruction.                  │
│  Opening it at appeal = definitive solution, no proxy war.      │
│                                                                 │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Standing disclaimers: I am Mark-Robert Abraham, founder and former CEO of Shape Robotics A/S (CVR 38322656), Romanian citizen writing in personal capacity. This is a journalistic compilation of facts that are independently verifiable in Danish public records. Every name appearing here is a public actor. Final legal filings remain the prerogative of Mazanti-Andersen (Philip A. Borreschmidt). The procedural views below are mine and the company’s — not legal accusations against any specific actor.

What happened today

At Sø- og Handelsretten this morning, two petitions were on the docket:

1. Reconstruction, filed by our main creditor Elena Pasat (~DKK 400M of total ~DKK 500M group debt traces back to Romania)

2. Bankruptcy, filed by liquidator Teis Gullitz-Wormslev

The court ruled against reconstruction and for bankruptcy.

I am not going to comment on the merits of the judge’s decision in language that creates noise. Bo, who was in court with me, can confirm what we both observed: the proceeding was short, the central document under discussion — a registered promissory note — was clearly unfamiliar to the bench, and the time available did not permit full ventilation of any of the substantive arguments.

So instead of complaining about the procedural form, let me explain what the ruling actually means.

The procedural reality

The Danish maritime and commercial court (Sø- og Handelsretten) processes insolvency matters quickly. Today’s hearing was approximately ten minutes total — five for the bench, five split among all parties — followed by a short deliberation and ruling.

For a case with documented system-wide exposure in the DKK hundreds of millions to billions, with cross-border claims, multiple defendants, and a central instrument (the promissory note) governed by the Geneva Convention 1930 + Romanian law on aval (Legea 58/1934), a ten-minute hearing is not where this case can be properly decided.

It is, however, the procedural form Danish bankruptcy courts use.

The decisions at first instance in Danish bankruptcy court are immediately enforceable (no automatic delayed effect on appeal). This is unusual by EU standards. Denmark, in fact, opted out of the EU European Enforcement Order regime — the only EU member to do so. The bankruptcy courts here operate on fast-forward by design.

This is why every meaningful decision in this case is going to be made at the appeal level. We always knew that. We said so from the beginning. Today simply confirmed the route.

Why losing today is, paradoxically, the better outcome

Here is what nobody is reporting:

During today’s hearing, an accountant appeared in the courtroom who had not been introduced by either Mazanti-Andersen or by Elena Pasat’s counsel. We did not know who brought him. It became clear during proceedings that Teis was attempting to install one of his own people as a “co-reconstruction accountant” alongside Philip Borreschmidt from Mazanti.

Under the procedural reform of 2011, having a reconstruction accountant is no longer compulsory in Danish law. But the court can still appoint one if a party requests it. Had reconstruction been opened today, the structure would have been:

• Reconstructor (lawyer): Mazanti-Andersen

• Reconstructor (accountant): a Teis-affiliated party

That is a hostile reconstruction. The very person whose conduct caused the unlawful 6 January 2026 bankruptcy — annulled unanimously by Østre Landsret on 5 March 2026 (K 3337/25-F) — would have been operating inside the reconstruction itself, through a proxy, alongside our counsel.

We were not prepared for that. We did not see it coming. Had reconstruction opened with that structure, we would have lost it from the inside.

By ruling against reconstruction at first instance, the court inadvertently saved us from a hostile reconstruction we would have lost. The appeal route now leads to reconstruction without Teis-affiliated proxies inside. That is a definitively better outcome.

What changes for the appeal

The High Court (Østre Landsret) will hear three pieces of business in the coming weeks:

1. Appeal of today’s ruling (rejection of reconstruction + grant of bankruptcy)

2. Appeal already in motion against Teis’s appointment as liquidator (filed earlier, ruling expected this week or next based on information we have received)

3. All of it consolidated if the timing aligns

If the High Court rules — and we have strong reasons to believe it will — that Teis should be removed as liquidator due to conflict of interest, then today’s bankruptcy ruling collapses automatically. Because the person who petitioned for bankruptcy today was the liquidator. Remove the liquidator, and the petition that opened bankruptcy today goes with him.

This is why I keep saying: the appeal IS the case. Always was.

The promissory note — and why Teis just made our case for us

The judge today struggled with the nature of the promissory note. In Danish commercial practice, the instrument fell out of common use after the 1960s. In Eastern European practice — Romanian, in particular — it is a standard, registered, non-cash payment instrument with deep historical roots in the bezna l / beznal tradition from the USSR economic system, where governmental institutions and state-owned factories used non-liquid currency instruments for inter-entity payments. The instrument never lost its centrality in Romanian commercial life.

For those new to this: a promissory note is extremely simple, extremely direct, extremely powerful. The debtor-creditor relationship is intentionally constructed so that the creditor does not have to verify the debtor’s internal procedural compliance. That is the entire point of the instrument. If the debtor’s internal signing rules were violated, that is an internal matter for the debtor — not a defense against the creditor’s claim.

Today, Teis attacked the promissory note in Danish court by arguing it was not a valid claim because of internal signing concerns. This was the central argument used to reject reconstruction on the merits.

Here is what Teis did not understand he was confessing.

The promissory note claim is already registered as a valid claim in Romania. It is the lead claim in Romania. The registration period has expired. The claim has matured. It cannot be contested in Romania any longer — neither by Teis, nor by anyone else.

Teis became aware of this Romanian claim on 26 January 2026, when the unlawful bankruptcy he obtained on 6 January 2026 was still in effect. He had three months in which, as bankruptcy curator and de facto administrator of Shape Robotics’ assets — including its subsidiaries — he had a fiduciary duty to contest the claim in Romania if he believed it was invalid.

He did not contest it. He let it mature.

Now, in May 2026, he stands up in Danish court and says the very same claim is invalid.

He has just confessed, on the record, in Danish court, that he failed to perform his fiduciary duty in Romania. He let a claim he now says is invalid mature into a definitively registered claim in Romanian jurisdiction — meaning he caused material loss to Shape Robotics Romania during his tenure as curator. That is a separate, independent cause of action against Teis personally, recoverable from his liability insurance.

He just gave us the case against him.

The Brussels I bis route — what comes next

In 6 weeks, the appeal will be heard. By that time, the following will have happened:

1. Procedure of ordonanță de plată (sum mary order for payment) initiated in Romania on the basis of the promissory note + aval. Under Romanian law (Codul de Procedură Civilă + Legea 58/1934), this is a summary procedure — typically resolved in 30–60 days, faster if uncontested or if opposition is unfounded.

2. Romanian title executoriu obtained. Tribunal român applies Romanian law to the aval (per lex loci actus — Geneva Convention 1930 principle: aval is governed by the law of the place where it was given).

3. Certificate under Article 53 of Regulation 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis) issued by the Romanian court. This certificate, in standardized EU form, attests to the enforceability of the judgment in the state of origin.

4. Recognition in Denmark under Article 39 of Regulation 1215/2012: “A judgment given in a Member State shall be enforceable in the other Member States without any declaration of enforceability being required.” Denmark applies Brussels I bis under the parallel agreement signed 19 October 2005, in force from 1 July 2007.

5. Deposit of the Romanian title at Østre Landsret as new evidence in the appeal. Procedurally admissible: the document did not exist at the time of first instance.

6. The Danish appellate court will face a binary choice:

   • Recognize the Romanian title (mandatory under EU Reg. 1215/2012, refusal grounds are extremely narrow per Article 45)

   • OR generate a head-on conflict between two coordinate EU member state judgments on the same claim, which the EU system is structurally designed to prevent

Østre Landsret will choose recognition. That is the architectural logic of the EU judicial space.

When the Romanian title is on the table, the entire premise of today’s ruling collapses. The claim is valid. The aval is valid. The Romanian instance — applying Romanian law to a Romanian aval — has confirmed it. The Danish first-instance ruling that the promissory note “was not a valid claim” cannot survive that.

What this means for shareholders

I want to be very direct with our shareholders.

Today does not change the outcome of this case. It changes only the timing.

If reconstruction had been granted today, it would have been a hostile reconstruction with Teis operating inside through a proxy accountant. We were not ready to fight that war from inside, and we would likely have lost it slowly while feeling like we were winning.

If reconstruction is granted on appeal — which is where the definitive decision was always going to be made — it will be a clean reconstruction. The Romanian title will be on the table. Teis will be in conflict (whether removed as liquidator or formally censured by the DFSA’s pending market abuse ruling on his conduct during the 59 days, which is expected in the next one to two weeks).

The reconstruction plan, as I have said from day one, is the only path that returns value to shareholders.

In bankruptcy:

• The Romanian subsidiary (where the center of business and the center of creditor claims actually sits — centre of main interests under EU Insolvency Regulation 2015/848 considerations are more nuanced than the Danish first-instance treatment) absorbs most of the procedural action.

• Creditors get paid. They will get paid from Romanian proceedings irrespective of Teis.

• Shareholders lose everything — because in liquidation, the equity stack is wiped out by definition.

In reconstruction:

• Debt is restructured (haircuts, litigation rights, structured terms)

• Shares are diluted but not extinguished

• The company resumes operations on a defensible base

• We bring back operational team, replace lost contracts, rebuild

• The pump-and-dump litigation (DKK 309M–2,477M defendant exposure analyzed in Day 62) becomes an active claim of the company, prosecuted by reconstruction administrators, with proceeds flowing through the capital structure including to shareholders

Reconstruction is the only outcome where shareholders are not zero-ed out. The appeal is the route to reconstruction. Today’s ruling means the appeal happens with the Romanian title executoriu in hand. That is materially stronger than going in without it.

What I observed today, factually

I am being careful with the language. These are observations, not accusations:

1. The hearing lasted approximately ten minutes total. Bo can confirm.

2. Teis cited a Børsen newspaper article during his oral argument — I understand the substance was a reference to what Andre Fehrn allegedly knew or did not know. Newspaper articles are not generally admissible as probative evidence in Danish civil procedure (Retsplejeloven § 341 governs admissibility), and their use raised an eyebrow from our side. I am not commenting on the bench’s reaction.

3. Teis stated in court that he has the support of UniCredit for the bankruptcy. To my direct knowledge, having spoken with UniCredit in Romania, UniCredit’s position is the opposite — they are seeking to attribute the bankruptcy claim to Teis. He did not submit documentary evidence of UniCredit support. I cannot reconcile his statement with the conversations I have had.

4. An accountant appeared in the courtroom who had not been introduced by Mazanti or by Elena’s counsel. It emerged that Teis was attempting to install him as co-reconstruction accountant. This is procedurally permissible to request, but it was not, in our view, properly disclosed in advance.

5. The substantive merits of the promissory note — the Geneva 1930 framework, the lex loci actus principle on aval, the Vekselloven §§ 7-8 protections for vekselholdere — were not, in our perception, fully engaged by the bench in the time available.

I record these observations because they are relevant to the appeal. I do not draw legal conclusions from them. Mazanti will frame the appeal arguments in proper Danish legal form.

What changed for me personally

Yesterday I was preparing for a reconstruction that I now realize, in retrospect, would have been a trap. We did not see it coming. We were not ready for a hostile-reconstruction architecture with Teis-affiliated proxies inside the procedure.

Today I am preparing for an appeal with:

• A Romanian title executoriu in motion (6 weeks)

• A pending appeal against Teis’s appointment as liquidator (decision this week or next)

• A pending DFSA ruling on Teis’s conduct during the 59 days (one to two weeks)

• Cumulative procedural defects in today’s ruling that mirror exactly the defects Østre Landsret already annulled unanimously in K 3337/25-F (5 March 2026)

• Clear, documented, factually verifiable evidence that the central instrument (the promissory note) is registered and matured in Romania, where Teis failed to contest it during his fiduciary tenure

I am more prepared for the appeal than I was for today’s hearing. By a significant margin.

The bigger frame

When I said in Day 62 that the establishment is fighting to keep Shape dead because the bill they face if Shape survives is system-scale (DKK 309M – 2,477M, EUR 105M most likely), today’s ruling fits cleanly into that frame.

What you saw today is what aggressive defense looks like in a system where the bankruptcy court operates on fast-forward and the appellate court is where definitive answers actually happen. Teis, Kromann Reumert’s broader position, the establishment’s preferred procedural form — all of these benefit from speed and from outcomes that produce irreversible facts on the ground before the appellate court can rule.

We knew this from day one. We said it on day one. We are operating accordingly.

Asymmetric warfare, as I said to the audience this evening. We are operating against a Big-5 law firm with thousands of lawyers. We have a small team and a Romanian creditor with a registered claim. What we have, that they do not have, is:

• A claim that is materially correct and registered in a coordinate EU jurisdiction

• A procedural framework (Brussels I bis) that does not give Denmark veto power

• A documented pattern of first-instance procedural defects that the appellate court has already annulled once and is likely to annul again

• Time, used efficiently — six weeks is short relative to most commercial litigation, and it is enough to get the Romanian title in place before the appeal

Bottom line

We lost the battle. The war just got simpler.

In six weeks we return to Østre Landsret with:

• A Romanian title executoriu confirming the validity of the promissory note in Romanian jurisdiction (where it belongs under lex loci actus)

• The certificate under Article 53 of Reg. 1215/2012 making it directly recognizable in Denmark

• Documentation that Teis failed in his fiduciary duty to contest the claim in Romania during his curator tenure

• All the procedural arguments from Day 62 about § 11 a, § 15 stk. 2, rets-kraft, and the 10-minute hearing not constituting effective hearing under Retsplejeloven § 339, ECHR Art. 6, and Grundloven § 63

• A pending DFSA ruling on Teis’s market abuse conduct (expected within one to two weeks)

• A pending appeal that may remove Teis as liquidator entirely (expected this week or next)

Any one of those is meaningful. Together they are decisive.

The reconstruction plan — the only path that returns value to shareholders — opens at appeal. Without Teis inside. Without a hostile-reconstruction architecture. On clean procedural footing.

That is what the next six weeks are for.

To everyone following: please understand that today’s ruling is not the end of this story. It is a procedural waypoint on a path we have always been on. The appellate court is where this case ends. Today only confirmed that we are going there with stronger evidence than we would have had otherwise.

I will leave Copenhagen tomorrow. The work continues from Bucharest.

🚨 GAME OVER 🚨

Q.E.D.

— Mark-Robert Abraham Founder & former CEO Shape Robotics A/S Romanian citizen, writing in personal capacity WildCEO.live · 11 May 2026 · Copenhagen

Receipts at the bottom (for the record)

• Day 62 (yesterday): Why They All Want Us Dead — Pump & Dump Part 4

• Master KB: SHAPE_ROBOTICS_PUMP_DUMP_MASTER_KB.md

• Liability analysis: SHAPE_LIABILITY_ANALYSIS_MAXIMUM.md

• Memo on § 247 / rets-kraft argument: MEMO_Mazanti_247_inapplicable.md

All published at wildceo.live.

Get more from Mark Abraham | WildCEO in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Previous episodes: Day 57: The Paywall Question · Day 56: The Board Folder · Day 55: Friday Q&A — Jørgen and the Documents · Day 54: How the Note Became Liquid

Fifty-eight days into a war I didn’t start. Six days until the court hearing on 11 May at 09:30 at Sø- og Handelsretten.

I want to do something different this week.

For 58 days I have written about Teis Gullitz-Wormslev. About the unlawful bankruptcy of 6 January 2026. About the trustee period. About the reconstruction on 11 May. All of it true. All of it documented.

But last week a friend asked me a question that stopped me in my tracks. He said: “Mark, I follow your dispatches. I understand the bankruptcy was unlawful. I understand the reconstruction. But what actually happened before all of that? What was the pump and dump everyone keeps mentioning?”

He was right to ask. Most people on the Nordnet thread do not actually know what happened in March 2024. They know the share price fell. They know there was something with Carnegie. They know the name Lars Topholm gets thrown around. But the actual mechanics — who did what, when, with what tool, for whose benefit — have never been laid out cleanly in one place.

So today and over the next few days, four episodes back to back. Part 1: the Pump. Part 2: the Dump (the people who profited). Part 3: the cover-up by Finans.dk. Part 4: how it connects directly to the bankruptcy of January 2026.

This is Part 1.

🎯 What is a pump and dump — in plain English

A pump and dump is a market manipulation scheme with two phases. The name describes the action.

Phase 1 — The Pump. A party with influence over price-sensitive information artificially inflates the share price. Could be through a positive analyst report. Could be through rumors. Could be through coordinated buying. The point is: the price goes up not because the company has fundamentally changed, but because someone is engineering the perception that something good is about to happen.

Phase 2 — The Dump. Once the price has been inflated, the same party — or coordinated parties — sell their position at the elevated price. Retail investors who bought during the pump are left holding the bag when the price collapses afterwards.

The distinguishing feature of a real pump and dump is information asymmetry. The party doing the pumping has information that the buying retail investors don’t have — usually that the same party is about to sell. It’s not a prediction. It’s a script.

This is what happened to Shape Robotics in March-April 2024. And the man at the center of it was Carnegie’s most senior equity analyst.

🏛️ The 2023 backdrop — uplisting to Main Market

Some context first. In late 2023 Shape Robotics did an uplisting from First North to the Main Market of Nasdaq Copenhagen. In hindsight, I think this was a strategic mistake by the management at the time — but that’s a separate conversation we will have in a future one-to-many session.

Two important consequences of the uplisting:

✓ EIFO support became contested. The Danish state’s export and investment fund had supported Shape Robotics on First North. The bureaucratic interpretation that emerged after the uplisting was that EIFO shouldn’t continue supporting Nasdaq-listed companies. That set the stage for EIFO’s eventual withdrawal in June 2024.

✓ The uplisting was technical — not an IPO. We made a prospectus. We moved up to the Main Market. But we did not issue new shares to the public at the uplisting. The board had authorization to issue shares, but didn’t use it at uplisting. With the benefit of retrospect, that authorization should probably have been used. We will come back to this.

By early 2024 Shape Robotics was on the Main Market, with an ambitious budget for FY 2024, a strong PNRR pipeline in Romania, the Polish Bechtle contract well underway, and a fresh acquisition (Scriware) being integrated.

In March 2024, Shape Robotics did execute a directed share issue — raising approximately DKK 35 million at DKK 35 per share. This is the share placement that becomes critical to the pump-and-dump story.

📄 The “Back of the Envelope” — 5 March 2024

On 5 March 2024, twenty days before he ever contacted me, Lars Topholm — Managing Director and Head of Research at Carnegie Investment Bank — circulated a document internally and to selected market participants.

The document is titled, in his own words, a “back of the envelope” analysis of Shape Robotics. The phrasing is deliberate. “Back of the envelope” in financial industry English means a quick rough calculation, not a formal research note. By labeling it that way, Topholm was claiming the document was casual — too informal to require the disclosure obligations that apply to formal Carnegie research.

Here is the relevant opening paragraph, verbatim:

“I have done a back of the envelope on Shape Robotics, a Danish microcap with market cap at DKK 500 million. Given the company has just announced a very ambitious growth plan targeting at least DKK 1 billion in revenue by 2027 with a 12-15% EBITDA margin, which itself was a double from 2022, it might not be a microcap for much longer. So for 2024, it has guided revenue of at least DKK 300 million — at least 75% growth.”

So far this reads like context. But then comes the modeling. Topholm includes graphs labeled as “Carnegie Research / Company data”:

• Revenue Development 2017–2027 — projecting growth trajectory through 2027

• Guidance vs. Actual — showing Shape’s track record of beating prior guidance

• Share Price @ 12% EBITDA — a price target table at one EBITDA assumption

• Share Price @ 15% EBITDA — a price target table at a higher EBITDA assumption

• Main Figures 2022–2027e — full P&L projection

• Trade Receivables vs Revenue — working capital trajectory

These are not back-of-the-envelope graphs. These are full-fledged Carnegie research outputs, generated using Carnegie’s proprietary research tools — algorithms and models the bank has built over years for serving its institutional clients. A casual analyst writing on the back of an envelope does not have access to those tools. The Head of Research at Carnegie does.

Below are the actual graphs from Topholm’s document, reconstructed in Datawrapper:

📊 Revenue Development 2017–2027

📊 Guidance vs Actual

📊 Share Price @ 12% EBITDA

📊 Share Price @ 15% EBITDA

📊 Main Figures 2022–2027

📊 Trade Receivables vs Revenue

These are the fundamental analysis tables Topholm used to justify the 3-4x upside projection. Below — in two new charts — is what actually happened to the share price during and after the distribution of his “back of the envelope” to selected market participants.

The fundamental tables make a case. Project Shape’s stated 2027 ambition (DKK 1 billion revenue, 12-15% EBITDA margin) into a share price using standard EBITDA multiples, and you get a theoretical share price three to four times higher than the market price at the time.

The document closes with this line — verbatim:

“This isn’t an official research, just the back of the envelope. So risks to the numbers stated above may be significant. However, given the share price today that stands at DKK 36, I thought it was relevant to share because if these calculations make sense, Shape Robotics could become much less of a microcap in future.”

⚡ Why this is investment advice — not “back of the envelope”

The document does three things that, together, transform it from informal commentary into regulated investment advice under EU Market Abuse Regulation:

❶ It uses Carnegie research tools and graphs clearly labeled as such — establishing institutional authority.

❷ It includes price target tables at specific EBITDA assumptions — the structural form of an investment recommendation.

❸ It is distributed to investors who are then expected to act on it — including, as we now know, parties with whom Topholm had pre-existing financial relationships.

Under MAR Article 20 (and the underlying Regulation (EU) 596/2014), an investment recommendation that uses an institution’s analytical resources triggers disclosure obligations — including the obligation to disclose any personal interest the analyst holds in the security being analyzed.

Lars Topholm at the time he circulated this document held shares in Shape Robotics personally. He did not disclose this. The Danish FSA later confirmed this was a violation of MAR Article 20.

That confirmation — by Finanstilsynet, on the public record — is the foundation on which everything else in this story rests. The pump was not a theory. It was a regulated finding.

📞 The first call — 25 March 2024

Twenty days after Topholm circulated his “back of the envelope” — on 25 March 2024 — he contacted me directly for the first time.

The message, verbatim from my inbox:

“Nice to connect. I’m a shareholder too. Can we do an introductory call at your convenience? No rush. — Lars Topholm”

I had no idea who he was. I was preparing to take over as CEO from André Fehrn, who had decided to step down. As part of the natural handover I was reviewing emails and noticing senior contacts the company had developed. Topholm popped up.

We had a one-on-one call on 26 March 2024. He presented himself as Carnegie’s Head of Research — Denmark’s most prestigious equity analyst, with a long track record at the largest investment bank in the Nordics. He said he had been a shareholder of Shape Robotics for a while. He wanted to discuss the company’s strategy and prospects.

The conversation was civilized. I treated him as a senior market professional doing routine analyst due diligence. I did not know that twenty days earlier he had already circulated his “back of the envelope” projecting 3-4x upside, while holding shares. I would only learn about that document much later — in late June 2024, from the chairman Jeppe Frantzen, after the damage was done.

That asymmetry of information — me not knowing what he had been doing externally with material projections about my company — is the structural defect of the entire scheme. The CEO of the company that is being analyzed was the only person in the room who didn’t know that an analyst report had been circulated.

📈 What happened to the price — verified data

Here are the public, verifiable data points. All numbers can be cross-checked on TradingView (OMXCOP:SHAPE) and Cision company announcements.

✓ Pre-pump baseline (early February 2024): ~DKK 33 per share. Stable trading band.

✓ 5 March 2024: Topholm circulates “back of the envelope” internally. Price ~DKK 35.5.

✓ 11 March 2024 (Cision Announcement 9-24): Private placement initiated at DKK 35 per share. Subscription indications received for DKK 40+ million against DKK 35.4 million target — placement oversubscribed. Total: 1,011,653 new shares issued at DKK 35 = DKK 35,407,750 gross proceeds.

✓ 18 March 2024 — PEAK: DKK 52.00 per share. This is the all-time high of SHAPE on OMXCOP, confirmed publicly on TradingView. Seven trading days after placement. +48.6% from placement price.

✓ 22 March 2024: New placement shares admitted to trading. Total shares outstanding: 15,066,170.

✓ 25-26 March 2024: Lars Topholm contacts me directly for the first time. By this date, the pump has already happened.

✓ 24 April – 4 June 2024: Coordinated sale of approximately 532,000 shares by Topholm/Bundgaard/Bendixen network. Price drops from low-40s to low-20s range over 6 weeks.

📊 Chart 1 — The Pump (Feb-Apr 2024) — interactive Datawrapper

A 48.6% repricing in seven trading days, with no material new disclosure from the company between 11-18 March other than the placement itself (which completed at DKK 35, not DKK 52). The company itself did not communicate any guidance upgrade, any new contract, any acquisition, any operational news that would justify a 48.6% repricing.

What changed between 5 March and 18 March 2024 was not the company’s fundamentals. What changed was the information that selected investors had received from Topholm’s “back of the envelope,” via Carnegie’s distribution channels — including the projection that DKK 52 might just be the start, with 3-4x upside still to come.

That is the textbook structure of a pump.

📉 Where it ended — the 21-month drawdown

📊 Chart 2 — The Pump & Dump (Feb 2024 → Jan 2026) — interactive Datawrapper

The peak of DKK 52.00 on 18 March 2024 was the last time Shape Robotics shares traded above the placement price.

✓ End of June 2024: ~DKK 18 (after coordinated sales conclude)

✓ End of 2024: ~DKK 22-23 (brief recovery)

✓ September 2025: ~DKK 6

✓ 23 December 2025 — ATL: DKK 1.58. All-time low confirmed on TradingView.

✓ 6 January 2026: Last trading day at DKK 5.03, then suspended indefinitely following the unlawful bankruptcy decree.

🔑 Drawdown from peak: 96.96% in 21 months.

An ATH of DKK 52.00 → ATL of DKK 1.58 = -97% drawdown.

Retail investors who bought into the placement at DKK 35 — relying on the same “back of the envelope” projecting 3-4x upside — saw their position cut by 95.5% before trading was suspended.

🕴️ The connections — Aerbio, Bundgaard, Bendixen

Here is the part that turns this from a regulatory infraction into a coordinated scheme.

Lars Topholm is the Chairman of Aerbio, a Danish biotech company in the carbon-offset space. Aerbio raised capital from a small circle of investors. Two of the most prominent investors in Aerbio are:

✓ Martin Bundgaard — Danish private investor, owner of holding companies that participate in placements like the March 2024 Shape Robotics directed issue.

✓ Søren Bendixen — Danish private investor, similarly active in directed placements via personal investment vehicles.

Both Bundgaard and Bendixen — through their direct holdings and via vehicles like Sundvænget — participated in the March 2024 Shape Robotics share issue at DKK 35 per share. Together with associated parties, the network acquired approximately EUR 3.5 million worth of shares in the placement.

Then, between 24 April and 4 June 2024, the same network — Topholm, Bundgaard, Bendixen, and Sundvænget — coordinated the sale of approximately 532,000 shares at peak prices, extracting approximately DKK 21 million in cumulative profits.

Average gains: 50-85% per investor on the Shape Robotics position, in roughly 60 days.

🔑 The structural pattern:

The Chairman of Aerbio (Topholm) circulates a “back of the envelope” projecting 3-4x upside on Shape Robotics, while holding shares.

Two major Aerbio investors (Bundgaard, Bendixen) buy into the Shape Robotics directed issue at DKK 35.

The price pumps to DKK 55-56 over six weeks.

The same network coordinately sells at the peak, extracting DKK 21 million from retail buyers who bought into the rally.

This is not a coincidence. This is the script.

📰 The character assassination — and the Bundgaard family

The final piece of this Part 1 is something most readers will find surprising. Once I started publishing the pump-and-dump investigation on Substack in late 2025, a coordinated media counter-strike began against me personally — not against any of the actors in the pump-and-dump.

The lead organ in that counter-strike is Finans.dk, where the financial journalism on Shape Robotics has been particularly aggressive — including the December 2025 fraud allegation that triggered the auditor Beierholm’s resignation on the same day.

The senior editor at Finans handling the financial coverage is Morten Bundgaard.

Martin Bundgaard — the investor who profited approximately 85% from the Shape Robotics pump — is Morten Bundgaard’s relative.

The character-assassination campaign in Finans, which surfaced sealed court documents from a 2017 Romanian whistleblower case completely unrelated to Shape Robotics, only makes sense in this light. Someone with a vested interest in burying the pump-and-dump story had access to the Danish business press and used it.

This will be the focus of Part 3 of this series. For Part 1, just register the pattern: the people who profited from the pump are connected, by family, to the people now running the editorial counter-strike.

🎯 What’s coming in Parts 2, 3, 4

Part 2 — Tomorrow: The Dump. Who exactly sold what, when, at what price. The 532,000 shares between 24 April and 4 June 2024. The coordinated exit. Sundvænget’s 94,927-share dump on a single day. Topholm’s personal sale on the same day his network’s vehicle dumped. The DKK 21 million extracted from retail.

Part 3 — Day after: The Cover-up. How Finans.dk responded to my Substack investigation. The leaked sealed Romanian documents (publication date timed exactly one day before my scheduled trustee testimony). The character assassination playbook. The “Pandora pump-and-dump 2018” precedent involving the same Topholm.

Part 4 — Day after that: The Connection. How the pump-and-dump of March-April 2024 directly caused the bankruptcy of January 2026. The DKK 205 million in shareholder value destroyed. The 79% share price collapse from peak. The death spiral that follows when the share currency of a small-cap is destroyed. Why EIFO withdrew. Why Treyd filed bankruptcy. Why everything that has happened since 6 January 2026 traces back to one document on 5 March 2024.

That is the arc. Four episodes. Four disclosures. Four pieces of evidence already on the public record.

🔚 Closing

What happened to Shape Robotics in March-April 2024 was not bad luck. It was not market volatility. It was not even ordinary insider trading.

It was a pump and dump engineered by Denmark’s most prestigious equity analyst, using his bank’s proprietary research tools, distributed to a coordinated network of investors who bought into the directed share issue and sold into the rally — extracting approximately DKK 21 million from retail investors in roughly 60 days.

Finanstilsynet has confirmed the regulatory violation. The DFSA’s finding is on the public record.

Everything that has happened to Shape Robotics since — the auditor resignation, the EIFO withdrawal, the Treyd bankruptcy petition, the unlawful bankruptcy decree of 6 January 2026, the trustee period, the tvangsopløsning, the current liquidator’s hostile actions — all of it traces back to the share-currency destruction caused by the pump and dump of 2024.

Reconstruction on 11 May is not just about saving Shape Robotics. It is about establishing publicly that retail investors on Nasdaq Nordic cannot be treated this way without consequence. That a coordinated extraction scheme run by a Carnegie analyst against a Danish microcap will be exposed, prosecuted, and the proceeds recovered.

Theft in broad daylight by smart people in Patagonia vests, who believe they can extract from retail and disappear into respectability.

Not this time.

We did not start this fight. We are going to finish it.

Q.E.D.

Mark-Robert Abraham · Founder and former CEO, Shape Robotics A/S · 5 May 2026 · Day 58

Lead complainant on the shareholders’ petition: Jørgen Andreas Berg · joergen.andreas.berg@gmail.com

🔐 Vault access: wildceo.live/vault — subscribe at substack.wildceo.live and use the same email to log in.

🤖 Wild CEO AI agent — trained on the full case archive — at wildceo.live.

📊 The Datawrapper graphs reconstruct the analytical content of the 5 March 2024 “back of the envelope” document. The original document is part of the Finanstilsynet case file and has been confirmed by the DFSA as constituting investment advice subject to MAR Article 20 disclosure obligations.

📚 Part 2 of this series — “The Dump” — drops tomorrow.

🏷️ #ShapeRobotics #PhaseEducation #NasdaqCopenhagen #SHAPE #PumpAndDump #LarsTopholm #Carnegie #CarnegieResearch #MAR #MARArticle20 #Finanstilsynet #DFSA #Aerbio #MartinBundgaard #SørenBendixen #Sundvænget #BackOfTheEnvelope #ShareholderPetition #Reconstruction #MazantiAndersen #Independence #JørgenAndreasBerg #SøOgHandelsretten #ØstreLandsret #FinansDK #MortenBundgaard #SchoolsFirst #WildCEO #GameOver #Day58 #HowThePumpStarted

Get more from Mark Abraham | WildCEO in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Previous episodes: Day 56: The Board Folder · Day 55: Friday Q&A — Jørgen and the Documents · Day 54: How the Note Became Liquid · Day 53: The Independence Argument

Fifty-seven days into a war I didn’t start. Seven days until the court hearing on 11 May at 09:30 at Sø- og Handelsretten.

Today’s livestream opened with Don’t Stop Believin’ on the speakers. Then Bo joined. Then Peter. Then Karsten. Then Marcel. Then Louise — who as usual asked questions that disappeared up the chat thread before I could read them. Claudio Hulea joined too — I knew Claudio years ago when I did business in Adevăru, and there he was, in the chat.

Then I shared my screen and walked through what I built and shipped yesterday: the Vault at wildceo.live/vault. War Council. 264 documents. AI-indexed. AskYCO assistant. Subscriber-gated.

And then I read the comments from Nordnet — including this one from “Islander”:

“Mark has lost his school when he demands that the company’s owners — shareholders — pay to access information about the company. He has a duty to inform the owners of everything important. The absurdities are in a row here.”

Direct answer below. Plus today’s news from Romania, the upcoming court date, the Morten V. Langer article in FinansWatch, and where the reconstruction stands seven days out from 11 May.

🔐 Yesterday: I shipped the Board Folder

For those who missed yesterday’s launch dispatch — short version, repeated here:

The Vault at wildceo.live/vault is the private, subscriber-only section of the site. Every document I have access to from my time as CEO of Shape Robotics A/S is being indexed and made searchable for paid subscribers.

This is the gate:

You log in with your Substack subscription email. The dashboard inside looks like this:

264 documents, indexed by category, fully AI-summarized, searchable across 4,447 chunks. Mirror of Google Drive. Auto-categorized by Gemini Flash. Plain-English natural-language search through AskYCO.

📚 What is actually in there

Six categories. Each searchable. Each citable back to source PDFs with page numbers.

✓ Board Minutes — 97 documents, 866 chunks. Every board meeting from the company. Including Board Meeting #66 (1 September 2025) which discussed the financial difficulties that preceded the unlawful bankruptcy decree.

✓ Weekly Updates — 64 documents, 1,270 chunks. The weekly reports I sent to the board — KPIs as I actually saw them, not as PR communicated them.

✓ Budgets — 50 documents, 530 chunks. Quarter-by-quarter cash flow statements. Forecast vs actual. Downloadable as XLSX. Today on stream I scrolled through a few of them live so people could see the granularity.

✓ Contracts — 28 documents, 418 chunks. Customer contracts, supplier agreements, financing arrangements.

✓ Legal Filings — 22 documents, 1,309 chunks. The full legal dossier — Østre Landsret appeal, Finans.dk litigation, Finanstilsynet correspondence, criminal complaint to Københavns Politi.

✓ Subsidiaries — 3 documents, 54 chunks. Subsidiary corporate structure documents.

Here is one example of an AI-generated summary inside the Vault:

That is a Gemini-generated brief from one document. There are 264 of these. All cross-referenced. All searchable.

⚙️ What I fixed this weekend

The pipeline wasn’t always working. Saturday morning the indexing was silently broken — 286 documents stuck on pending, the PDF parser crashing on real files, AskYCO returning zero. Here is the before/after:

Now it works. 264 of 298 documents are indexed (89%). The remaining 34 are physically corrupted Excel→PDF exports that need manual re-export. Working through them this week.

❶ Q: “Why behind a paywall? You have a duty to inform shareholders.”

This came up on the Nordnet thread today. The exact quote I read on stream was: “Mark has lost his school when he demands that the company’s owners shareholders pay to access information about the company. He has a duty to inform the owners of everything important.”

The argument has emotional appeal but does not survive contact with the facts. Four direct answers.

🎯 First — there is no statutory duty to publish private working files.

I was unlawfully removed as CEO by the bankruptcy decree of 6 January 2026. Since then, I am a private citizen who happens to hold copies of documents from his former employer. Statutory disclosure obligations under MAR Article 17 fall on the issuer, currently represented by the liquidator. They do not fall on me as a private citizen sharing private working files with subscribers.

The disclosure deficit, by the way, is real — it just sits with the other side. The liquidator has issued zero MAR-meddelelser in the period 17 April 2026 to today. That is the actual transparency problem in this case. Not me sharing a private archive behind a subscriber gate.

🎯 Second — the paywall is operational protection, not gatekeeping.

If I publish 264 documents openly on the public web, the next thing that happens is selective extraction by hostile commenters, weaponized framing, and fragments lifted out of context to fuel a new round of Børsen articles. Behind the gate, who reads what is identifiable. The subscriber list is auditable. Documents are screen-capture-protected at the rendering layer.

Anyone genuinely interested in the case can subscribe. Trolls can also subscribe — but they pay. That payment creates accountability and limits the damage they can do with selective leaks. Skin in the game.

🎯 Third — every other media outlet on this case is paywalled.

Børsen — paywalled. Finans.dk — paywalled. FinansWatch (where Morten V. Langer wrote about us today) — paywalled. They all charge for their coverage of Shape Robotics. Some of them charge DKK 1,500 a year or more.

The difference is that they tell you a curated story. I give you the source documents and let you reach your own conclusions. If the principle is that information about Shape Robotics should be freely available, that principle has to apply to all sides. It currently does not.

🎯 Fourth — I have personally invested over EUR 250,000 to keep this company alive.

The subscriptions go directly into the reconstruction effort. Legal counsel. Court filings. Hosting infrastructure. Operating costs of running this campaign full-time for what is now into the third month. I am not getting rich from Substack subscriptions. I am paying out of pocket and trying to recover some of it from those who genuinely want to support reconstruction.

The Vault subscription is voluntary. It is not a duty. It is an invitation: if you want to read the receipts behind the headlines, this is where they are. Børsen reports headlines. Subscribers read the receipts.

❷ Q: “But why screen-share protection? Isn’t that excessive?”

Yes — and intentional. Two reasons.

✓ Litigation strategy. The court hearing is on 11 May. Selective leaking of documents to outlets that have already shown coverage bias could prejudice the proceeding. The screen-share protection prevents accidental or malicious leaks during the most sensitive procedural window.

✓ Document provenance. If a document leaves the Vault and ends up in a Børsen article, I want to know which subscriber leaked it. The protection means any document that does leak has a paper trail.

This is not paranoia. This is operational reality after fifty-seven days of facing a well-funded media counter-narrative.

📰 Today: Morten V. Langer in FinansWatch

Today FinansWatch published a piece by Morten V. Langer about the Shape Robotics situation. The title (translated): “Lawyer takes most of the roles in this distinctive software case — and he’s allowed to.”

I won’t reproduce the article here — FinansWatch is paywalled, fair use applies — but the substantive content is:

✓ Shape Robotics is heading for tvangsopløsning according to the Danish Business Authority register ✓ The company has had no auditor since Beierholm’s resignation in December 2025 ✓ The recent EGM did not elect a new auditor ✓ According to the company’s stock exchange notice, the company is unable to elect an auditor at the EGM because it does not have access to its accounting documents — which are held by the liquidator Teis ✓ The company is therefore requesting that the Danish Business Authority appoint a temporary chartered accountant

The piece is quoting from the company’s own press release, not adding analysis. It correctly notes that the liquidator holds the accounting documents and that we cannot elect an auditor without them. That is exactly what the company filed publicly. The structural problem is that the same person who has the documents is the same person who refuses to release them.

This is the Catch-22 the liquidator has constructed:

• He withholds the accounting records

• The company cannot elect a new auditor without them

• No auditor means no annual report

• No annual report means continued tvangsopløsning grounds

• Continued tvangsopløsning means he stays in office

Reconstruction breaks the loop. An independent reconstructor takes over, the documents are released to the company, an auditor is elected, the annual report is filed, and the tvangsopløsning grounds disappear. That is what 11 May is about.

🇷🇴 Today’s Romania update — bailiff court for the promissory note

In parallel with everything else, today I went to the bailiff court in Romania to obtain a court order for the promissory note. Separate procedural track that strengthens the claim ahead of the 11 May hearing in Copenhagen.

🎯 Why the Romanian bailiff matters:

The Pasat aval is governed by Romanian cambial law (Geneva Convention 1930, transposed via Legea 58/1934). A formal Romanian bailiff order will confirm — under the jurisdiction with substantive authority — that the promissory note is enforceable. That order then carries automatic recognition implications under Brussels I bis Regulation when raised in Danish proceedings.

I am not previewing my full procedural strategy. I have a clear view of what the liquidator will attempt to argue on 11 May, and the Romanian bailiff order is part of the response. You always want the upper hand in court.

The bailiff order will go into the Vault as soon as it is issued. Subscribers see it first.

❸ Q: “What happens with Danske Bank and EIFO if reconstruction succeeds?”

Peter asked this on stream. Direct answer:

🎯 Danske Bank + EIFO have a floating charge of approximately DKK 14 million (~EUR 2 million).

Under the reconstruction plan, that floating charge gets honored in full. The bridge financing facility I described in Day 55 — USD 750K first tranche of a USD 3M total facility, 12% per annum, 18-month tenor — covers the EIFO repayment within the first week of reconstruction commencing.

Personally guaranteed by me. EIFO gets paid. Danske gets paid on their secured position. In full. Public commitment.

🎯 The other ~DKK 525 million in claims gets a 99.99% haircut via tvangsakkord.

Voluntarily accepted by the majority creditor (Mrs. Pasat, DKK 217M) and by Moby Industries (DKK 45M). Together that is 62.2% of the voting creditor mass — sufficient to bind the rest under Danish bankruptcy law. The 99.99% reduction is not a negotiation tactic. It is a public commitment that the goal is operational survival, not money extraction.

🎯 We currently have approximately EUR 16 million in equity lines available.

Equity lines that are blocked by the Nasdaq trading suspension — but unlocked the moment the reconstruction begins and the suspension is lifted. That is the operational liquidity that makes the post-reconstruction company viable from day one.

🎯 Post-reconstruction prospectus.

I believe — though this needs validation with counsel — that we should issue a fresh information prospectus during the reconstruction proceeding. Refresh the public information about the company after fifty-seven days of operational silence imposed by the trustee/liquidator. Give the market a clean baseline to value the recovered Shape Robotics from.

That is the path back to normal trading on Nasdaq Copenhagen: reconstruction → prospectus → equity line drawdowns → operational continuation → schools served → platform alive.

🏛️ The court hearing — Monday 11 May, 09:30, Sø- og Handelsretten — public

Today on stream I asked Bo, Peter, Karsten, Louise and Marcel directly: who is coming to court on 11 May?

🎯 The hearing is fully public. Anyone can attend. Shareholders, creditors, journalists, supporters, neutral observers, friends of shareholders, friends of friends. Public means public.

Sø- og Handelsretten, Maritime and Commercial High Court, Copenhagen. 09:30. Monday 11 May 2026.

Bo will coordinate the in-person presence in Copenhagen. Peter committed to attending. Karsten said he’ll try. Louise — perhaps. If you can be there, be there. Physical presence in court matters more than internet activity.

The reconstruction petition has been filed. The lead complainant on the parallel shareholders’ petition is Jørgen Andreas Berg, who organized the Norwegian collection. Approximately 30 shareholders signed via Nordnet alone over the past week. The supplementary complaint to Finanstilsynet went in on 4 May. The criminal complaint to Københavns Politi went in on 4 May.

Everything we control is in motion. What remains is the court.

📈 Where the podcast stands

Wild CEO — The Journey is now ranked #31 on Substack’s business chart. Up roughly 30 positions per week. Fastest-rising business podcast on the platform.

Not because I am a great host. Because the case is unprecedented.

In 25 years of Nasdaq Copenhagen main-market history, the Maritime and Commercial Court has handled exactly two non-fraud bankruptcies of listed issuers — and both stood. Mine is the third — and it has been annulled, unanimously, by the Eastern High Court.

That is what people are tuning in for. A case nobody thought possible, unfolding in real time, with documents released as they emerge.

❹ The 4,700 shareholder problem

Here is the structural mystery that drove a long discussion on stream today.

Shape Robotics has approximately 4,700 registered shareholders in 17 countries, per the VP register. On the Nordnet thread and in the Substack chat, the active core is maybe 10-15 people. Where are the other 4,685?

Some are dormant retail accounts. Some bought one share to test the market and never engaged. Some inherited shares and don’t know they own them. Some are following silently and waiting.

But most concerningly — most don’t know what is actually happening. They see a Børsen headline that frames the founders as suspicious actors and assume the worst. They never read the detailed case. They never see the documents. They never check whether their interests align with the founders’ or with the liquidator’s.

So today we discussed practical options for outreach. There is a list of shareholders by name and address — but no contact information. No emails. There is also a LinkedIn group I am told exists with about 90 members trying to recover their investments. None of them reach out to me directly.

🎯 If you are a Shape Robotics shareholder reading this — please reach out.

Email: mark.robert.abraham@gmail.com Substack chat: open to all subscribers Discord: link in pinned chat post

The reconstruction needs your support. Not your money. Just your presence — at the court hearing, in the Substack chat, on the petition, in the public conversation.

If the reconstruction succeeds, your shares regain value. If it fails, the bankruptcy estate distributes whatever remains after the liquidator’s fees. The arithmetic is not subtle.

🔚 Closing

The pump-and-dump in November 2024 destroyed the value of the Shape Robotics share currency. That was the founding wound of this entire mess. The bankruptcy that followed in January 2026 was a procedural fraud. The annulment in March 2026 confirmed it.

What I want — what Elena wants, what the team in Romania wants, what the genuine creditors want — is to return Shape Robotics to pre-pump-and-dump status. Recover what was lost. Push the loss back onto Lars Topholm and Carnegie, where it belongs. Operate the company. Serve the schools. Pay the debts. Move on.

Reconstruction is the only path that does this. Bankruptcy under the current liquidator is asset distribution into a fee-extraction structure that benefits the wind-down operators, not the shareholders, not the creditors, not the schools.

11 May. 09:30. Sø- og Handelsretten. Independent reconstructor. Mazanti-Andersen.

That is the choice. Everything else is noise.

We are not rich. We are not victims. We are not crazy. We are wild — and we are coming back to pre-pump status no matter how many lawyers in Copenhagen try to write us out of our own company.

Q.E.D.

Mark-Robert Abraham · Founder and former CEO, Shape Robotics A/S · 4 May 2026 · Day 57

Lead complainant on the shareholders’ petition: Jørgen Andreas Berg · joergen.andreas.berg@gmail.com

🔐 Vault access: wildceo.live/vault — subscribe at substack.wildceo.live and use the same email to log in.

🤖 Wild CEO AI agent — trained on the full case archive — at wildceo.live.

🏷️ #ShapeRobotics #PhaseEducation #NasdaqCopenhagen #SHAPE #Vault #WarCouncil #BoardFolder #Transparency #Reconstruction #MazantiAndersen #PhilipBorreschmidt #Independence #JørgenAndreasBerg #ShareholderPetition #SøOgHandelsretten #ØstreLandsret #KromannReumert #TeisGullitzWormslev #Tvangsopløsning #Likvidator #DanskeBank #EIFO #BridgeFinancing #Beierholm #FinansDK #FinansWatch #MortenVLanger #BørsenArticle #PumpAndDump #LarsTopholm #SchoolsFirst #WildCEO #GameOver #Day57 #ThePaywallQuestion

Get more from Mark Abraham | WildCEO in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

👉 Join the War Council — Founding Supporter (888 USD/year)

Nasdaq Copenhagen: SHAPE | CVR: DK38322656 | ISIN: DK0061273125

54 days since the Danish High Court unanimously annulled the bankruptcy of Shape Robotics A/S. 8 days to the reconstruction hearing. Today I am opening something I have been building since January.

🧭 TL;DR

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                         🧭  TL;DR                               │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                                 │
│  What opens today    War Council — the Board Folder             │
│                      Every board minute 2024–2026               │
│                      Every material contract                    │
│                      Every subsidiary report                    │
│                      Phase Education A/S reconstruction docs    │
│                      Legal filings as they happen               │
│                                                                 │
│  Access              wildceo.live/subscribed                    │
│                      Email + password (sent to you personally)  │
│                                                                 │
│  Cost                888 USD/year                               │
│                      Founding Supporter tier on Substack        │
│                                                                 │
│  Where money goes    Legal costs. Court filings.                │
│                      Expert opinions. Not overhead.             │
│                      The fight.                                 │
│                                                                 │
│  Why not free        The press that published my sealed DNA     │
│                      testimony is reading this Substack.        │
│                      Every document released publicly           │
│                      becomes a weapon in the wrong hands.       │
│                                                                 │
│  Why now             May 11. 09:30. Sø- og Handelsretten.       │
│                      Reconstruction hearing.                    │
│                      62.1% creditor majority.                   │
│                      The Board Folder is the evidence base.     │
│                                                                 │
│  The rule            GAME OVER stays free. Always.              │
│                      The full file costs 888 USD/year.          │
│                                                                 │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘📁 What the Board Folder Contains

Let me be specific. Not vague. Specific.

Since January 2026, I have been fighting this case alone. No institutional backing. No law firm on retainer. No PR team. I have been paying every legal cost myself, publishing every day for free, and managing hundreds of documents across three jurisdictions — Denmark, Finland, Romania.

Behind the daily GAME OVER updates, there is a second layer of this case that I cannot safely publish in the open.

Today I am making it available — selectively, deliberately, and only to those who are serious about the reconstruction of Phase Education A/S.

📌 Board Folder — contents at launch

• 📁 Board Minutes 2024–2026 — complete. Every resolution. Every vote. Every discussion.

  📄 Material Contracts — the Bechtle Polska EUR 32M framework, the IRIS Capital LOI, the Alisa/Veritas/Finnvera Finnish financing, the Moby promissory note, the Afviklingsaftale with Danske Bank.

  🏢 Subsidiary Reports — Phase Education A/S, Shape Robotics Romania SRL, Sanako Oy pre-bankruptcy, Shape Robotics Poland.

  ⚖️ Legal Filings — reconstruction petition, appellate brief in Case SK-524/2026-SHR, shareholder EGM resolutions, DFSA correspondence.

  📊 Weekly Updates — every material development at court, before it hits the press.

Updated weekly. More documents added as proceedings progress.

🔒 Why a Paywall on This — and Not on GAME OVER

I have said it before. I will say it plainly again.

The media that published my sealed DNA testimony before I had seen it myself is reading every word of this Substack. The liquidator who withdrew the Company’s MAR complaint from the DFSA — without asking me — is watching this publication. Every document I release publicly becomes a weapon in the hands of people who want this reconstruction to fail.

🔴 This is not a paywall on the truth. GAME OVER stays free. The daily record stays free. The timeline stays free. The full file — the board folder, the contracts, the legal strategy — is behind a wall. Not because I have anything to hide. Because not everyone who wants access to these documents wants to save this company.

The War Council is a filter, not a profit mechanism. 4,800 shareholders own this company. The ones who want to understand exactly what happened — board minute by board minute, contract by contract, filing by filing — can now do that. The ones who want to strip quotes for tomorrow’s Børsen headline cannot.

Every dollar from the 888 USD/year Founding Supporter tier goes directly to the legal battle — lawyers, court filings, expert opinions, appeal costs. Not overhead. Not infrastructure. The fight itself.

:⚖️ Why Now — 8 Days Before May 11

The reconstruction hearing at Sø- og Handelsretten is Monday 11 May 2026 at 09:30.

Elena Pasat’s petition carries 62.1% of the creditor majority. The plan is the 99.99% haircut with the Litigation Proceeds Unit structure — debt converts into litigation rights, not diluted equity. If reconstruction opens, existing shareholders keep what they bought.

Between now and May 11, every document that can be published will be published — in the War Council vault, in real time, for Founding Supporters.

The Board Folder is not a historical archive. It is a live evidence base for an active reconstruction case. Everything I add this week will be relevant to what happens in that courtroom on Monday.

🤲 For the 4,800

If you bought Shape Robotics shares, you bought this company believing in the business. If you held through the 87% collapse, the illegal bankruptcy, the unanimous High Court annulment, the dissolution attempt, the EGM, the liquidator’s six-point negligence letter — you are still here for the same reason: because a Nasdaq-listed company with 4,800 shareholders does not get dismantled in silence.

The Board Folder is the evidence that proves it does not have to.

🟢 Join the War Council — 888 USD/year

Subscribe at substack.wildceo.live → select “War Council — Founding Supporter”. You will receive your vault credentials at wildceo.live/subscribed within 24 hours. Your email is your key. Use the same address you subscribe with.

If you have questions before subscribing, write to me directly: mark@wildceo.live

📊 The scoreboard after 56 days

🔜 What happens next

Now. War Council vault opens. Board Folder live at wildceo.live/subscribed.

This week. First batch of board minutes and material contracts uploaded. Romanian television interview on the case, broadcast date TBC.

Monday 11 May 2026, 09:30. Reconstruction hearing at Sø- og Handelsretten. Elena Pasat’s petition argued. Creditor majority: 62.1%.

Wednesday 20 May 2026. Six pending bankruptcy petitions heard — unless May 11 renders them moot.

Every day until then. This Substack. Every filing. Every document. Every receipt.

📚 The full investigation

Day 52: The Thief Shouts Thieves — The liquidator’s letter convicts its own author.
Day 50: Zero Practice — 17 bankruptcies. 25 years. 2 real comparable cases. This court has never done this before.
Day 41: The Six Claims — DKK 24.9M vs DKK 330M. The math the press never published.
Day 34: The Regulator Agrees — DFSA confirms market abuse. Lars Topholm. In writing.
Start Here — The Wild CEO Story — New to this? Begin with the data.
wildceo.live — The full investigation site.

🔔 Subscribe

GAME OVER stays free. Every episode. Every day.
The Board Folder is behind the wall — for those who want to save this company.
wildceo.live/subscribed | 888 USD/year | mark@wildceo.liv

Leave a comment

GAME OVER | Day 56 — Subscribe at substack.wildceo.live for real-time updates.
Shape Robotics A/S | CVR DK38322656 | Nasdaq: SHAPE | ISIN: DK0061273125
Mark-Robert Abraham, Founder and CEO — Phase Education A/S
May 3, 2026. Day 56. The Board Folder.

🏷️ #GameOver #Day56 #BoardFolder #WarCouncil #ShapeRobotics #PhaseEducation #NasdaqCopenhagen #SøOgHandelsretten #Reconstruction #May11 #WildCEO

Today on the livestream I tried something new: a one-on-one Friday format with Jørgen Andreas Berg as co-host. Jørgen is finishing his bachelor’s in business in Norway, has been collecting signatures on the Nordnet thread, and today filed petitions on behalf of approximately 30 shareholders.

He brought the questions. The hardest ones from the Nordnet thread. I answered them on stream, with documents on screen. This dispatch is the structured version, with the two contractual exhibits I shared publicly for the first time.

❶ Q: “Sanako was profitable but couldn’t pay salaries — and now two parties accuse Shape Robotics of stealing EUR 4.5M abroad. What really happened?”

The question is structured to imply a contradiction. There is no contradiction. There are four logical errors in the framing.

🎯 Logical error one — profitability ≠ liquidity.

Sanako Oy was profitable: 50.6% operating margin, 72% equity ratio, EUR 2M revenue in FY2024 (Suomen Asiakastieto public registry). Profitable. Period.

Sanako Oy lacked cash. It lacked cash already when we acquired it in June 2025 — that was one of the reasons we acquired it via share swap rather than cash. A profitable company can simultaneously have temporary cash flow constraints. That is corporate finance 101. Confusing the two is not a discovery — it is a misreading.

🎯 Logical error two — there are not two independent parties accusing.

Per the company’s own publicly filed announcement of 11 March 2026: “Mr. Gullitz-Wormslev was copied on the Finnish administrator’s communications from the start.” Per Cision Announcement 07-26 of 24 March 2026, the Finnish pesänhoitaja from Asianajotoimisto Ylikraka Oy is described as the liquidator’s “colleague.”

Two coordinating voices are one narrative. The arithmetic of independent corroboration does not apply when the corroborators communicate from the start.

🎯 Logical error three — buying a company to consolidate cash flow is not a crime.

Cash pooling between a parent and a 100%-owned subsidiary is the global standard treasury structure. Selskabsloven § 222 permits inter-group transfers serving commercial purpose. IFRS 10 consolidates them automatically. Every multinational group on Nasdaq Copenhagen does this — Maersk, Carlsberg, Novo Nordisk, all of them.

Sanako was acquired in June 2025 through share swap with a § 160 valuation report at EUR 8.6M. We used illiquid Shape A/S shares — paralyzed by the November 2024 pump-and-dump that crushed the share price — to acquire a profitable European company that could be consolidated under IFRS 10 and then attract new financing for the EUR 40M Polish PNRR pipeline (Bechtle contract). That is exactly what M&A is for.

🎯 Logical error four — Sanako was paying salaries until Teis arrived.

Here is the simplest test of the accusation. How did Sanako Oy pay salaries in December 2025 — and then suddenly fail to pay them in January 2026, exactly when Teis became kurator with shareholder authority over Sanako?

The 100% shareholder representative on 5 February 2026 — when Sanako filed the voluntary bankruptcy petition — was Teis Gullitz-Wormslev. He had the authority to move group cash. He had the authority to call in customer payments. He had the authority to authorize the Polish project that would have generated immediate revenue. He chose not to. Then he allowed the bankruptcy filing.

If he believed cash had been improperly extracted from Sanako, he had thirty days as kurator with full legal authority to recover it. He did nothing. His behavior contradicts his accusation.

The accusation is therefore not just wrong on the facts — it is structurally incoherent. It accuses one person of misconduct while describing actions that only the accuser had legal authority to remedy.

❷ Q: “Will you share the auditor’s resignation letter from Beierholm?”

Yes. I shared it live on screen today.

The letter is dated 18 December 2025, signed by Thomas Thomsen, partner at Beierholm. It reads:

Auditor

117KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

“Dear Mark and Aurel,

I am sorry to inform you that we have decided to resign as Auditor of Shape Robotics A/S. Our resignation is due to lack of communication with and trust in the company’s management.

We are obliged to notify the Danish Business Authority and Nasdaq of our resignation and the reason for it, which will be done immediately following this email.

We have communicated with Nasdaq about this issue. They have asked me to inform you that you are obliged to inform the market about our resignation.”

That is the entire letter. No specific concerns cited. No findings. No referenced transactions. “Lack of communication with and trust in the company’s management” — that is the stated reason.

🎯 Same date as the Finans.dk article.

On 18 December 2025 — the exact day Beierholm resigned — Finans.dk published an article titled “Mark Abraham anmeldt for grov bedrageri i ikke-konkursramt selskab i Rumænien” (translation: “Mark Abraham reported for gross fraud in non-bankrupt company in Romania”).

Same day. The auditor was scared by the media coverage. Last week, in a private conversation, Thomsen confirmed it directly to me: the reason he decided not to continue was the Finans articles.

That is what happened to the auditor. Not an audit finding. A media scare.

The fraud allegation referenced by Finans.dk is the subject of an ongoing legal dispute. We are pursuing Finans.dk in court for the November-December 2025 coverage. The allegation has not been proven — and “reported for fraud” is not the same as “found guilty of fraud” under any legal system. But that is the article that triggered Beierholm’s resignation.

We are now looking for an international auditor with the capacity to operate independent of small-market Danish media pressure. The Danish audit market is too small. An international firm is the right call.

2023 Long Form Audit Report Of 12

138KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

2024 Long Form Audit Report Of 03

148KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

❸ Q: “Will you share the Earn-out terms from the Story Kids acquisition?”

Yes. I shared two pages on screen. They are reproduced below in full.

Exhibit A — Warrant Agreement (2021, acquisition year)

Warrant: “Shape Robotics A/S guarantees that Mark Robert-Abraham and Elena Mocanu shall receive compensation equivalent to 25% (twenty-five percent) of the total value of business generated through the PNRR (Recovery and Resilience Plan) as a direct result of the StoryKids acquisition, to be paid in shares of Shape Robotics A/S.”

Terms: “Shares shall be issued to Mark Robert-Abraham and Elena Mocanu at the prevailing market price at the time of issuance, with a reference price of 10 DKK (ten Danish Kroner) per share. Mark and Elena agree that the total commission can be paid out separately to the individuals or to a shared account. Both parties need to sign the transfer document.

Shape Robotics A/S hereby irrevocably guarantees and commits that it shall repurchase any and all shares issued to Mark Robert-Abraham and Elena Mocanu under this Section, upon their request, at a minimum guaranteed price of 24 DKK (twenty-four Danish Kroner) per share, regardless of the prevailing market price at the time of repurchase.”

That is the document signed in 2021 at the time of the Story Kids acquisition. Two key elements:

✓ Compensation equal to 25% of PNRR business value, paid in Shape A/S shares

✓ Repurchase guarantee at 24 DKK per share — irrevocable, by Shape A/S, regardless of prevailing market price

Exhibit B — Commission Terms (effective 1 January 2022)

Commission: “From January 1st 2022 and onwards, Mark and Elena shall accumulate: receive 2% of all revenue (ex. VAT) invoiced from Romania (SRR) as commission in cash AND a Number of Shares = (25% × Total PNRR Business Value) ÷ 10 DKK per Share at issuance.”

Terms (excerpts):

“Commission is dependent on Mark and Elena’s continued affiliation with the company as specified in the contract of August 27th 2021.

As specified in the contract of August 27th 2021, Mark and Elena’s contract cannot be terminated before 31 December 2026. In case of termination without cause Mark and Elena are entitled for full compensation of accumulated cap of 2M EUR and the full compensation of 25% share agreement to be paid in shares or cash equivalents.

If any personal liability direct or indirect on Mark and Elena is approved by the CEO David Johan Christensen, then this liability is covered by Shape Robotics A/S. There is an existing liability of appx. 1 M.EUR in relation to PNRR which is hereby also approved.

The cash commission is capped at accumulated 2 M.EUR (Not including ‘School Drop Out Project / Altex Contract’ — TBD at later stage). Orders must have a minimum gross margin of 10%. Revenue is measured as invoiced orders... The commission is calculated quarterly, in the first week of every NEW quarter, and will be paid no longer than 30 days from end of each quarter.”

Two contractual mechanisms are visible here:

✓ A 2% cash commission on Romanian revenue, capped at EUR 2M cumulative

✓ A 25% share component of total PNRR business value, in Shape A/S shares at 10 DKK reference price, converting to cash equivalent if termination without cause occurs

The “termination without cause” clause is the core mechanism. Bankruptcy, liquidation, hostile removal of management — all qualify. When the share-conversion mechanism becomes unavailable (because the company collapsed), the contract converts the share entitlement to cash equivalent.

That is what crystallized on 6 January 2026. Not a number filled into a blank cheque. A contractual condition triggering a contractual remedy.

I will retain certain operational details — specific revenue figures, the full SPA, the side-letters — until 11 May 2026, for litigation strategy reasons. The two pages above are the structural skeleton. They show what the deal was. They show what the trigger was. They show what the remedy is.

❹ Q: “Why is none of this in the annual reports?”

Because the structure is a contingent commitment, not a booked liability — until the trigger event occurs.

The accounting position throughout 2022-2024 was:

✓ Mark and Elena receive a 2% cash commission on invoiced Romanian revenue, capped at EUR 2M — paid quarterly, expensed quarterly, recorded in the year of accrual

✓ Mark and Elena hold a share entitlement equal to 25% of accumulated PNRR business value — convertible into Shape A/S shares at 10 DKK reference, with the share-conversion mechanism active as long as the company functions normally

As long as the share mechanism is operative, no DKK liability appears on the balance sheet — the obligation is satisfied through equity dilution at issuance. Equity-settled obligations are accounted for differently from cash-settled obligations under IFRS 2. They are disclosed in note form, not booked as financial debt.

🎯 The conversion to cash liability happens only when share-settlement fails.

Bankruptcy makes share issuance impossible. The fallback engages. The cash equivalent crystallizes. That happens on the date of the triggering event, not retroactively across prior accounting periods.

The accounting treatment is consistent with how earn-out share-based instruments are treated across European listed issuers. Was the disclosure adequate? That is a fair question, and one I would welcome an independent reconstructor or the Erhvervsstyrelsen audit committee to examine. I will not litigate the disclosure question on Substack. The reconstructor on 11 May has the file.

What the critic has misread is this: Story Kids brought EUR 88 million of business into Shape Robotics through the Romanian subsidiary. The 25% commission on the PNRR component of that business was always a contractual entitlement — but as long as the share-settlement mechanism worked, it was an equity-instrument disclosure, not a cash-debt entry.

Bankruptcy broke the share mechanism. The cash entitlement materialized. That is the entire mechanic.

❺ Q: “And EIFO? What about the state development fund?”

I shared the breaking news live today. EIFO will be paid in full. That is a public commitment.

We have a bridge financing facility in the final stages of preparation:

✓ Up to USD 3 million total, with first tranche of USD 750,000

✓ Up to 18 months tenor, 12% per annum, with conversion right at 15%

✓ Secured by a first-ranking charge over Shape A/S assets and current/future subsidiaries

✓ Expected closing in May 2026, conditional on reconstruction commencing

✓ I personally guarantee the first USD 750,000 unconditionally

The plan is straightforward: reconstruction begins on 11 May, the bridge facility closes within the first week, EIFO is repaid in full from the proceeds, the floating charge is released, and the operational company continues with a clean senior debt structure.

🎯 Why EIFO matters specifically:

EIFO is the Danish state’s export and investment fund. Their mandate is to support Danish exporters operating internationally. We are exactly the kind of company they were created for — a Danish technology exporter selling to schools across Eastern Europe and Asia.

Whatever the historical defaults issue between EIFO and Shape A/S — most of which preceded my time as CEO and which I cannot relitigate here — the path forward is to honor the obligation in full. EIFO gets paid. State capital is preserved. The operational company survives. That is the only outcome that serves everyone.

We are not trying to write down EIFO’s claim. We are trying to pay it.

❻ Q: “If the company was profitable in 2024 with EUR 88M business through Story Kids, why are we even in this situation?”

Because of the pump-and-dump in November 2024 that destroyed the value of the share currency.

Here is the sequence that the critics keep ignoring:

1. 2021-2024: Shape Robotics A/S consolidates Story Kids, builds the EUR 100M PNRR pipeline through Shape Romania, executes successfully. Revenue grows. Margins grow. Operations are healthy.

2. November 2024: A coordinated short-selling and negative-coverage campaign — what we call the pump-and-dump, with documented activity from Lars Topholm at Carnegie and persistent negative coverage from Finans.dk — crashes the share price. The DKK 24 per share repurchase guarantee in our 2021 contract becomes unenforceable in practice because no fresh share issuance can be done at price levels that wouldn’t destroy the cap table.

3. December 2024 – November 2025: We attempt to fix the situation through the IRIS equity facility, the Aurel share purchase, the move to Main Market on Nasdaq Copenhagen, the Sanako share-swap acquisition, the EUR 40M Polish Bechtle contract.

4. November 2025: We come clean publicly about the pump-and-dump. The auditor resigns under media pressure on 18 December.

5. 6 January 2026: Bankruptcy decree by Sø- og Handelsretten — issued without proper service to me as CEO, and unanimously annulled by Østre Landsret on 5 March 2026.

🎯 The critical point: We were never bankrupt. We had liquidity tightness. We had been damaged by the pump-and-dump. We had been abandoned by the auditor. The board had been disrupted. But we were not bankrupt.

If we had been properly served on 6 January and given the chance to defend Shape A/S in court, no court would have bankrupted the company. We were recovering. We had just made tabula rasa on the stock exchange. We had filed the IRIS equity line. The Polish project was signed.

The destruction of value happened during the unlawful trustee period — 6 January to 5 March 2026 — not before it. That is what the trustee is now trying to obscure by attacking pre-bankruptcy management decisions.

The reconstruction on 11 May restores the path. The bridge facility activates. EIFO is paid. The schools’ subscriptions are honored. The operational company survives.

That is the whole story, in five paragraphs.

✊ Where the petition stands tonight

Jørgen filed petitions today on behalf of approximately 30 shareholders via the Nordnet thread. The shareholders’ petition is now formally consolidated. The supplementary complaint is with Finanstilsynet. The criminal complaint is with Københavns Politi.

🗓️ Deadline for additional signatures: Saturday 2 May 2026, 23:59 CET 🚀 Filing of consolidated petition: Monday 4 May 2026, morning 🏛️ Court hearing: Sunday 11 May 2026, 09:30 — Sø- og Handelsretten

Bo coordinates in-person attendance in Copenhagen. If you can be there — be there.

🔚 Closing

I told Jørgen on stream today: I do not want to come back as CEO. I do not want to be famous. I do not want to be rich from this.

What I want is to come back to pre-pump status. I want the company we built to function. I want the EUR 100M PNRR pipeline to deliver. I want the schools to use the robots they paid for. I want the platform to work in classrooms across Eastern Europe.

The 99.99% haircut is the public commitment. EIFO gets paid. The platform runs. Mazanti-Andersen’s Philip Borreschmidt examines every claim independently. Whoever the independent reconstructor finds is right is right. Whoever they find is wrong is wrong.

I accept independent assessment. I have been asking for it for fifty-five days.

11 May. Independent reconstructor. Q.E.D.

Mark-Robert Abraham · Founder and former CEO, Shape Robotics A/S · 1 May 2026 · Day 55

Co-host today: Jørgen Andreas Berg — lead complainant on the shareholders’ petition · joergen.andreas.berg@gmail.com

🤖 Wild CEO AI agent — trained on the full case archive — at wildceo.live.

📎 Embedded in this dispatch: Warrant Agreement (2021) and Commission Terms (effective 1 January 2022) from the Story Kids acquisition file. Additional documents released under controlled litigation strategy ahead of 11 May.

🏷️ #ShapeRobotics #PhaseEducation #NasdaqCopenhagen #SHAPE #BiletLaOrdin #PromissoryNote #Aval #StoryKids #PNRR #EUR88M #Earnout #Warrant #IFRS2 #IFRS10 #CashPooling #Selskabsloven #Sanako #SøOgHandelsretten #ØstreLandsret #KromannReumert #TeisGullitzWormslev #Tvangsopløsning #Likvidator #Reconstruction #MazantiAndersen #PhilipBorreschmidt #Independence #JørgenAndreasBerg #ShareholderPetition #Beierholm #FinansDK #PumpAndDump #LarsTopholm #EIFO #DanskeBank #BridgeFinancing #SchoolsFirst #WildCEO #GameOver #Day55 #FridayQA

Get more from Mark Abraham | WildCEO in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Fifty-four days into a war I didn’t start. Twelve days until the court hearing on 11 May.

Today my white British Shorthair Puma walked into frame at the start of the livestream. Less wild than the lynx, but she was hungry. She got fed. The livestream went on.

Then I shared my screen and walked through the legal opinion of the Romanian attorney who structured the Pasat claim. The full opinion. On screen. Line by line.

After that, I told the story behind it — what most journalists never bother to ask. Why the promissory note exists. Why it was issued in 2022. Why a wholly normal commercial protection mechanism is being framed by a Danish liquidator and now a Danish newspaper as something exotic and suspicious.

It is not exotic. It is not suspicious. It is precisely what counsel told us to do, four years ago, when we realized what kind of company we had just sold our business to.

📜 What the legal opinion says

I shared it on screen during the livestream. The opinion seeks to answer one question: what is the legal nature of the payments owed to Mrs. Elena Pasat under the Story Kids acquisition, the Consultancy Agreement, and the Earn-out Addendum?

The answer is in the first paragraph of the opinion:

“Mrs. Pasat registered her claim in Shape DK bankruptcy procedure, with a total amount of DKK 222,000,000 (approximately RON 147,967,781), representing a certain, liquid and due claim, arising prior to the opening of the bankruptcy proceedings, based on Promissory Note No. BACX3AA 6240945 dated 24 November 2025, aval-guaranteed by Shape Robotics A/S.”

Three legal qualifications matter here. Certain — the existence of the obligation is undisputed in its basis. Liquid — the amount is determinable by application of contractual formula. Due — the obligation has matured by the time the claim is registered. All three are technical terms in Romanian and Danish creditor law. Together they form the standard for a claim that carries voting rights in a creditor mass.

The opinion was drafted on the basis of three documents I have referenced repeatedly in earlier episodes:

✓ The Share Purchase Agreement of 27 August 2021 — Mrs. Pasat sold all shares of Story Kids to Shape Robotics A/S. The consideration was a number of Shape A/S shares calibrated to a defined euro amount.

✓ The Consultancy Agreement of the same date — Mrs. Pasat was engaged to provide management consultancy services. As the company expanded, addenda increased her role and her compensation. She advanced through the company’s hierarchy on the basis of performance and expertise.

✓ The Earn-out Addendum — the addendum signed on 18 February 2022 introduced two specific protections: a penalty clause for termination without cause, and a commission of 2% of all revenue invoiced by Shape Robotics Romania, payable in cash or convertible into Shape A/S shares at DKK 10 per share.

Promissory notes — bilete la ordin — were issued by Shape Romania, aval-guaranteed by Shape A/S through then-CEO André Fehrn, specifically to secure the situation in which the company would, for whatever reason, fail to fulfil its obligations to Mrs. Pasat.

That sentence is the entire purpose of the instrument. For whatever reason, fail to fulfil its obligations. Including bankruptcy. Including liquidation. Including unjustified termination. Including changes of management imposed by external parties. The note is the mechanism that survives all of them.

⚡ How the note became liquid

I’ll explain this in plain English because the Børsen article fundamentally missed it.

A promissory note issued in 2022 in connection with an earn-out is not a frozen number. It is a security instrument with a defined formula. The contract specifies the underlying entitlement — in this case, 25% of revenue from projects executed by Shape Robotics Romania, with conversion-to-shares mechanics at DKK 10 per share, falling back to cash equivalent if shares are unavailable.

The amount becomes definitive when the contractual condition crystallizes.

🔑 The contractual condition was met by the bankruptcy of 6 January 2026.

When Shape Robotics A/S was placed under bankruptcy administration, the share component became unavailable — bankruptcy itself made the share conversion impossible. The contractual fallback engaged: cash equivalent of the 25% commission, calibrated to the audited revenue base from Shape Romania’s executed PNRR projects.

The audited revenue base is approximately EUR 100 million — the figure I confirmed live today on the stream. Twenty-five percent of that revenue, payable to Mrs. Pasat under the contracts of 2021 and 2022, is the source of the claim. The face value follows the math. The math follows the contract. The contract precedes the bankruptcy by four years.

This is what every commercial lawyer in Europe — Danish, Romanian, German, French — would tell you. A blank-amount note backed by a contractual formula is one of the most common security mechanisms in earn-out transactions. It exists precisely because the parties cannot know in advance how much will be owed if a worst-case event occurs.

The worst case occurred. The note crystallized at the formula’s output. Mrs. Pasat registered the claim in the bankruptcy administration on 7 January 2026, the day after the bankruptcy decree.

🇷🇴 The back-story — what we lived through, and why we wrote the note

I told this on the livestream and I’ll write it here, because no journalist has bothered to ask.

When Shape Robotics A/S acquired Story Kids in 2021, the chairman who signed the deal was Lars Neugrod. He represented the version of Shape Robotics A/S that we trusted — the management team that had courted us, that had presented the company as a publicly listed enterprise with stable institutional backbone, that had committed to the long-term integration of our business.

Then Fundamental Invest came in as a major shareholder. Lars Neugrod was removed. The CEO at the time was forced out. The CFO left. Both later returned, then left again. The board rotated.

🔍 Within months of selling Story Kids to a publicly listed company, we realized:

The “publicly listed company” we had sold to was not a stable institutional structure. It was a thin holding company whose management could be removed by an incoming shareholder at any moment. The “backbone” we had assumed was there did not exist.

Meanwhile, the contractual obligations we had committed to — building the EUR 100 million PNRR pipeline through Shape Romania over multiple years — were not retractable. We were locked in. The Romanian state, the Romanian schools, the Polish school districts that we were preparing to serve — they did not care who controlled Shape A/S. They cared whether the projects got delivered. We had to deliver.

So in early 2022 we asked counsel for a security instrument. Standard commercial practice. If we are going to spend the next several years executing a EUR 100 million project pipeline, on the basis of contracts we signed with one version of Shape A/S — and that version of Shape A/S can disappear overnight at the whim of an incoming shareholder — give us a contractual mechanism that protects our earn-out and commission rights regardless of who controls the parent.

That is the promissory note. That is what the note is for. That is why aval-guarantees by the parent exist in commercial law.

It is not a hidden device. It is not a related-party trick. It is what any reasonable seller of a private company to a publicly listed acquirer with a thin governance structure would request. We requested it. Counsel drafted it. André Fehrn — the CEO at the time, signing as the duly authorized officer of Shape Robotics A/S — issued the aval.

Four years later, the worst-case event materialized. The note did exactly what it was designed to do.

📊 What “blank amount” actually means in cambial law

A bilet la ordin issued without an amount filled in is not an unenforceable scrap of paper. Romanian cambial law (Legea 58/1934, transposing the Geneva Convention 1930) and Danish Vekselloven (LBK nr. 1226 af 6. november 2018, transposing the same Convention) both recognize this expressly.

The instrument exists from the moment it is signed. The amount becomes definitive when the contractual condition for completion is met. This is identical in structure to a blank cheque, a banker’s draft with deferred completion, or any number of standard commercial instruments used in Europe every day.

🔑 The avalist’s obligation is autonomous.

Under Vekselloven §30 in Denmark and Article 30 of Legea 58/1934 in Romania — both verbatim transpositions of the Geneva Uniform Law — “the avalist is bound in the same manner as the person for whom he has become guarantor.” Under Vekselloven §32 stk. 2 and Article 32 of the Romanian law: “the avalist’s obligation is valid even when the obligation he has guaranteed is void for any reason other than defect in form.”

The substantive commercial relationship underlying the issuance — the Story Kids acquisition, the Consultancy Agreement, the Earn-out Addendum — is not a cambial defense. The note’s validity is verified per facie. On the face of the instrument. The face of the instrument is intact.

The fact that the amount was not filled in on day one does not invalidate the instrument. It defines the instrument’s function. A security mechanism whose value crystallizes when the protected event occurs.

The protected event was the parent company’s collapse. That occurred on 6 January 2026. The note did its job.

🇩🇰 Why this is settled in Romania, not Denmark

Here is the conflict-of-laws point, one more time, because Børsen wrote four pages without addressing it.

Under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention of 7 June 1930 for the Settlement of Certain Conflicts of Laws in Connection with Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes, to which both Denmark and Romania are parties: “the form of an undertaking entered into in respect of a bill of exchange... is regulated by the laws of the territory in which the undertaking is signed.”

Vekselloven §93-94 transposes this same conflict-of-laws principle into Danish law.

The Pasat note was issued in Romania. By a Romanian company (Shape Robotics SRL). On a Romanian bank instrument (BRD – Groupe Société Générale or equivalent). To a Romanian beneficiary (Mrs. Pasat). Under Romanian commercial law contracts (the Share Purchase Agreement of 2021 and the Earn-out Addendum of 2022, both governed by Romanian law).

Romanian cambial law governs its substance. Period.

Any Danish corporate-law argument that André Fehrn allegedly lacked solo signing authority is, even if it had merit, a defense that would have had to be raised — by anyone who wished to raise it — in Romanian courts within the cambial limitation periods. Six months for the recourse cambial action under Article 19 of Legea 58/1934. Fifteen days from notification for the opposition to enforcement under Article 62. Both expired.

The Fogedretten kendelse of 27 April 2026 (FS M4-2715/2026) confirmed exactly this distinction by rejecting enforcement on Danish procedural grounds — the absence of formal recognition under Brussels I bis Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 Article 39+ — not on the cambial substance. The instrument is intact. Its substance lives in Romanian law.

💔 The moral knockout — what the liquidator is actually doing right now

Let me end with the part that hurts the most. I told it on the livestream and I’ll write it here too, because it matters more than the legal analysis.

We sold tens of thousands of robots to Romanian schools. Sanako language platforms to Vietnamese schools. STEAM Labs to Polish schools. To Moldovan schools. To Ukrainian schools. Hundreds of school districts depend on our platform every day for science, mathematics, and language learning.

The platform requires service contracts to remain operational — small annual payments per school, two thousand or three thousand euros, that cover platform access, software updates, content licensing.

Shape Robotics has the money to pay these service obligations. The cash exists. The customers have already paid. Tens of thousands of students and teachers across Eastern Europe rely on this technology, every day, in their classrooms.

🔴 The likvidator — Teis Gullitz-Wormslev, partner at Kromann Reumert — is sitting on the money.

He has the authority. He has the cash. He has not been paying the service obligations. Schools are losing access to platforms my company sold them. Students cannot use robots my company shipped to their classrooms. Teachers are calling support lines that my team can no longer staff because the likvidator controls the budget and refuses to release operational funds.

This is not a legal abstraction. This is real damage to thousands of teachers and students who never asked to be part of a Danish corporate dispute. They bought our products. We delivered. The platform was working. Then a Danish trustee with a conflicted appointment decided to freeze the operational accounts, and now classrooms across Eastern Europe are dark.

I cannot walk down the street in my own city without being asked when the platform will work again. I cannot talk to my parents — both teachers — without explaining that the company we built to serve teachers is being held hostage by a partner at Denmark’s largest law firm who knows the harm he is causing and continues anyway.

This is why we are asking for a 99.99% haircut. Not because we want money. We want a path back. We want to pay the schools’ service contracts. We want the robots to work in the classrooms. We want the platform to be alive.

🎯 What the 99.99% haircut means, in plain language:

If reconstruction proceeds on 11 May, Mrs. Pasat’s claim — DKK 222 million on paper — is reduced to DKK 22,200. Twenty-two thousand two hundred crowns. That is what 99.99% off means. Mathematically, it is approximately the cost of a used car.

We accept this voluntarily. As a public commitment. Because the goal is not money. The goal is to keep the operational company alive so that the customers we serve — the schools, the teachers, the students — get what they paid for.

If reconstruction goes through and an independent reconstructor (Mazanti-Andersen’s Philip Borreschmidt) takes over, he examines every claim — including ours — under independent professional standards. If he confirms our claim is valid, fine. If he confirms parts of it are not, fine. If he says we get zero, fine. We accept independent assessment. We just want the schools served and the company alive.

What is the liquidator offering instead? Slow wind-down under his control. Asset sales to whoever bids. Service contracts that lapse one by one. Schools across Eastern Europe losing platforms that they paid for. A Danish bankruptcy estate distributing what little is left after his fees, his Helsinki colleague’s fees, and his firm’s fees in Copenhagen.

That is not a recovery for the 4,800 shareholders. That is not a recovery for the creditors. That is not a service to the customers who trusted Shape Robotics with their educational infrastructure. That is a wind-down that benefits the wind-down operators.

✊ Where the petition stands

Tomorrow, 1 May 2026, the petition is filed. Jørgen Andreas Berg leads as complainant. The supplementary complaint went to Finanstilsynet today with all annexes — Viktor’s two written confirmations, Teis’s letter of demand, the Sanako documentation.

The court hearing on 11 May 2026 at 09:30 at Sø- og Handelsretten is the structural decision. Bo coordinates in-person attendance. If you can be in Copenhagen that morning — be there.

➡️ Sign in the Wild CEO chat thread or the private Google Form. Both are open. Both feed into the petition annex.

🗓️ Deadline: Saturday 2 May 2026, 23:59 CET 🚀 Filing: Monday 4 May 2026, morning 🏛️ Court: Sunday 11 May 2026, 09:30

🔚 Closing

The note is not a mystery. It is a textbook security instrument that did exactly what it was designed to do. The legal opinion confirms it. The contracts confirm it. Cambial law in three jurisdictions — Romania, Denmark, the Geneva Convention — confirms it. The Fogedretten confirms it implicitly by ruling on procedural form rather than substance.

The only question on 11 May is whether the company we built — the platform thousands of teachers depend on — survives in the hands of an independent reconstructor, or is wound down under the control of a conflicted liquidator who freezes operational accounts while accusing former management of misconduct in letters that cite no documents.

The choice on 11 May is not Mark Abraham versus Teis Gullitz-Wormslev. The choice is operational company versus wind-down.

The schools voted with their procurement. The teachers voted with their classrooms. The 4,800 shareholders voted with their capital. We are asking the court on 11 May to honor those votes by giving an independent professional the chance to keep the operational company alive.

That is all I am asking.

Q.E.D.

Mark-Robert Abraham · Founder and former CEO, Shape Robotics A/S · 30 April 2026 · Day 54

Lead complainant on the shareholders’ petition: Jørgen Andreas Berg · joergen.andreas.berg@gmail.com

🤖 Wild CEO AI agent — trained on the full case archive — at wildceo.live.

🏷️ #ShapeRobotics #PhaseEducation #NasdaqCopenhagen #SHAPE #BiletLaOrdin #PromissoryNote #Aval #Geneva1930 #Vekselloven #StoryKids #PNRR #SøOgHandelsretten #ØstreLandsret #KromannReumert #TeisGullitzWormslev #Tvangsopløsning #Likvidator #Reconstruction #MazantiAndersen #Independence #JørgenAndreasBerg #ShareholderPetition #EdTech #SchoolsFirst #WildCEO #GameOver #Day54 #HowTheNoteBecameLiquid

Get more from Mark Abraham | WildCEO in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Previous episodes: Day 52: The Counterattack · Day 51: The Email That Confirms It · Day 50: Zero Practice · Day 49: The Pre-Appointed · Day 35: This Is Not Negligence

Fifty-three days into a war I didn’t start.

This morning I sat down to do my daily livestream. While I was waiting for the broadcast to stabilize, I opened Nasdaq’s investor forum and saw hundreds of comments. Two camps. People defending the trustee. People defending me. Both sides certain. Both sides shouting.

Then a message from Bo. “Mark, you’re on the front of Børsen.” I went to look. There was my photo, with sunglasses, next to a picture of a small piece of paper — the omstridte gældsbrev, the disputed promissory note, denominated in RON 147,967,781 — approximately DKK 217 million.

The headline: “Dødsstød eller slette al gæld?” — Death blow or wipe out all debt?

So today’s episode is about the only thing that actually matters. The thing both Børsen’s article and the Nasdaq forum and the trustee’s letter all dance around without ever naming.

Independence.

Neither I am independent. Neither is the liquidator. The Danish business press isn’t independent — Finans is paid by Carnegie and Danske Bank. Børsen, today, by its own choice of which questions to ask and which to skip, isn’t independent either.

The only path forward is to put an independent reconstructor — Philip Borreschmidt of Mazanti-Andersen — at the head of the company on 11 May. That is the entire argument of this dispatch. Everything else is noise.

🎯 The independence problem — stated cleanly

Let me put this in a way that no one in this case has yet stated cleanly. So I will.

I am not independent. I am the founder. I am personally guarantor on the Pasat aval. My partner is the largest disputed creditor. My father’s company is another disputed creditor. I have skin in this game in every direction. Anything I say about Shape Robotics is filtered through my own interest in seeing it survive. You should not take my word as the source of truth. I never asked you to. I publish the documents. I let you see them. I tell you what I think they mean. Then you decide.

Teis Gullitz-Wormslev is not independent. Six minutes before he was appointed kurator on 6 January 2026 at the Sø- og Handelsretten, he stood in the same courtroom as counsel for Danske Bank and EIFO. He was the lawyer of the largest creditor. He became the trustee of the company that owes that creditor money. The conflict was visible. It was on the retsbog. Then he was appointed liquidator a second time on 17 April 2026 by the same court — same conflict, same partner at Kromann Reumert.

The Danish business press is not independent. Finans is funded by parties with positions in this case. Børsen — let me be more careful here, because today’s article is more nuanced than yesterday’s letter from the liquidator — but Børsen has, by which questions it asked and which it didn’t ask, framed the case from one direction.

You cannot fix a problem of independence by adding more dependent voices on either side. You fix it by introducing a fully independent third party who has no relationship with the bank, with me, with Shape Robotics, with Danske Bank, with EIFO, with anyone in this matter.

That is what reconstruction is, structurally. A court-appointed independent professional steps in, takes over the company, and tries to find a survival path that is fair to all creditors. Philip Borreschmidt of Mazanti-Andersen is one of Denmark’s most respected reconstruction practitioners. He has no prior relationship with this case.

That is the choice on 11 May 2026 at 09:30 at Sø- og Handelsretten.

📰 The Børsen article — what it asked, what it didn’t ask, and what it accidentally proved

Børsen’s article ran today, 29 April 2026 at 17:00 CET, under the byline of four journalists — Johan Christensen, Kasper Ohmeyer, Simon Kirketerp, and Leonora Beck. Headline: “Dødsstød eller slette al gæld? Ét gældsbrev på 217 mio. kr. kan ændre alt i Shape Robotics.”

Let me deconstruct it the way I deconstruct any document — by what it includes, what it excludes, and what conclusions follow whether the author intended them or not.

What the article includes

✓ The factual chronology — January bankruptcy, March annulment, April compulsory dissolution, the upcoming 11 May hearing

✓ The promissory note in question — RON 147,967,781 (~DKK 217 million), issued December 2022 by Shape Robotics SRL to Elena Pasat, with aval by Shape Robotics A/S, signed by then-CEO André Fehrn, reissued in 2025

✓ The reconstruction proposal — tvangsakkord at 99.99%, requiring 60% of voting creditor mass

✓ The arithmetic — Elena’s claim DKK 217M + Moby Industries DKK 45M = 62.2% of voting creditor mass — sufficient for the tvangsakkord

✓ André Fehrn’s own statement that he signed the note understanding Shape A/S would guarantee the underlying debt to the extent owed

✓ The fogedretten kendelse of 27 April 2026 (FS M4-2715/2026)

✓ Mark Abraham’s position that the validity of the cambial instrument is determined under Romanian law, not Danish law

What the article excludes

✕ The Finanstilsynet’s two written confirmations of 27 April 2026 (J.nr. 25-026876) — that MAR Article 17 obligations apply to Shape Robotics regardless of suspension or its reason — even though Børsen’s reporters were aware of these confirmations through public announcements

✕ The Sanako Oy bankruptcy of 5 February 2026 — a material balance sheet event of approximately DKK 95M that the trustee did not announce to the market while in office

✕ The fact that the same liquidator who today characterizes the Pasat note as “unusual” failed to publish a single MAR-meddelelse on Cision/Globe Newswire/Nasdaq during 59 days as kurator and 11+ days now as likvidator

✕ The fact that the liquidator’s letter of 28 April 2026 was sent exactly 24 hours after the regulator confirmed the MAR obligation in writing

✕ The fact that the liquidator simultaneously refuses to activate the company’s own D&O insurance with TopDanmark while claiming damages of potentially hundreds of millions against former management

✕ The Geneva Convention 1930, transposed into Danish Vekselloven and Romanian Legea 58/1934, which determines that an aval signed in Romania on a Romanian instrument is governed by Romanian cambial law

✕ The doctrine of apparent authority (in Danish law: fuldmagtsregler under Aftaleloven; in Romanian law: mandat aparent) which protects third-party beneficiaries acting in good faith

✕ The fact that the 2025 reconfirmation of the original 2022 instrument constitutes ratification of any prior signature concern

What the article accidentally proves

Read the article carefully. Not what it says — what it shows.

It admits, on its own face, that Elena Pasat and Moby Industries together represent 62.2% of the voting creditor mass. By the article’s own arithmetic, the reconstruction with a tvangsakkord at 99.99% has the votes.

It admits that the liquidator’s strategy is to invalidate the Pasat aval not by going to Romania to challenge the cambial instrument under Romanian law, but by arguing in Denmark that André Fehrn lacked authority to sign — an argument that, under Geneva 1930 Article 4 and Vekselloven §93-94, simply does not apply to the validity of a Romanian-signed cambial instrument.

It admits that the liquidator has already used the same “lacked authority” argument to reject the Moby Industries claim — meaning he is choosing which related-party claims to reject and which to investigate, even though both relate to the same signing officer’s same authority.

It admits that André Fehrn, the signatory, confirms he intended to bind Shape A/S to the underlying debt. “Han anerkender dermed, at han har forpligtet det børsnoterede danske selskab til at betale Elena Pasat det beløb, hun kontraktuelt måtte have krav på at få fra det rumænske datterselskab, når dette ikke kan betale.”

It admits, in the most important sentence in the entire article, that if the reconstruction proceeds on 11 May with Mazanti-Andersen as reconstructor, the case is decided by an independent professional — not by me, not by the liquidator, not by the press.

That last admission is the entire game. Børsen wrote four pages, included photos of my face, framed me as the suspicious actor — and at the end of the article confirmed that the path forward I am proposing is exactly the path that gives the answer to a neutral observer.

⚖️ The two arguments that decide everything on 11 May

There are only two real arguments in this case. Both have to be settled by an independent professional. Neither can be settled by me, by the liquidator, by Børsen, or by Nasdaq forum commenters.

🔵 Argument One — Reconstruction or bankruptcy?

If the reconstruction is approved on 11 May with the 62.2% creditor mass voting in favor, an independent reconstructor (Mazanti-Andersen’s Philip Borreschmidt) takes over. He examines all the questions: Are the related-party guarantees commercially justified? Is the company viable? Is there a survival path? He decides, not me, not Teis.

If the reconstruction is rejected on 11 May, the company moves into liquidation under Teis. He continues as the same conflicted liquidator who is the bank’s former counsel. He decides which creditors get paid and which don’t. He decides whether to pursue claims against former management. He decides everything from inside the same conflict that has tainted every step of this case.

🔴 Argument Two — Romanian cambial substance or Danish procedural form?

The Pasat promissory note is governed by Romanian cambial law — that is the Geneva Convention 1930 conflict-of-laws rule, Article 4, transposed into Danish law via Vekselloven §93-94. The avalist’s obligation is autonomous and abstract. The validity of the instrument is verified per facie. The two channels for contesting it (cambial action under Article 19 of Romanian Law 58/1934, and opposition to enforcement under Article 62) lie in Romanian courts, with limitation periods that have expired.

The liquidator’s argument, as reported by Børsen, is that André Fehrn lacked solo signing authority under Shape Robotics A/S’ tegningsregler. That is a Danish corporate law argument. It does not survive contact with Romanian cambial substance. The doctrine of apparent authority protects the third-party beneficiary. The 2025 reconfirmation ratifies any prior defect. And the limitation period for contesting cambial signatures is six months — exhausted in 2023.

An independent reconstructor will recognize this immediately. A conflicted liquidator who is the bank’s lawyer will not.

🔍 What is missing from the conversation — entirely

Notice what nobody is talking about today.

The Danish FSA’s two written confirmations of 27 April 2026 in J.nr. 25-026876, sent four hours apart, that close every conceivable defense the liquidator could otherwise advance. Nobody at Børsen mentioned them.

The bankruptcy of Sanako Oy on 5 February 2026 — a material balance sheet event of approximately DKK 95M that the trustee did not announce while he was the only legally authorized organ to do so. Nobody at Børsen mentioned it.

The liquidator’s request to the regulator on 22 April 2026 to drop the MAR case J.nr. 25-026876 against himself as former trustee — five days after he was appointed liquidator a second time. Nobody at Børsen mentioned it.

The 11 events undisclosed in 11 days as liquidator. Nobody at Børsen mentioned them.

The supplementary complaint filed today, 29 April 2026, with Finanstilsynet, expanded with these very events plus the side-by-side hypocrisy table showing the liquidator accusing me of MAR breaches the same day the regulator confirmed he himself commits them daily. Nobody at Børsen mentioned it.

That is what an article framed by one camp’s questions looks like. It is not dishonest. It is selective. And in this case the selection systematically favors one side of a two-sided dispute that, by the article’s own admission at the end, requires an independent third party to resolve.

✊ The independence proposal — what to ask the court on 11 May

If you are a shareholder. If you are a creditor with voting rights. If you are watching this case as a journalist or as a regulator. The proposal is the same:

🏛️ Allow Mazanti-Andersen to take over.

Approve the reconstruction on 11 May 2026 at 09:30 at Sø- og Handelsretten. Place the company under the control of Philip Borreschmidt and Mazanti-Andersen. Have him examine the substance of the disputes — the Pasat aval, the Moby claim, the Windaco transactions, the Sanako acquisition, all of it — under independent professional standards.

If he confirms the reconstruction is viable, the company survives. If he confirms certain claims are not commercially justified, those claims are reduced or rejected by an independent process. The 4,800 shareholders in 17 countries get a real recovery, not a wind-down distributing what little is left after liquidator fees.

If he confirms I am wrong about anything, I accept that. I will pay for any mistakes I made. I am not going to disappear because the liquidator says so. But I am also not afraid of an independent assessment. I am inviting it.

The shareholders’ petition being filed at Finanstilsynet and Københavns Politi on Monday 4 May, with Jørgen Andreas Berg as lead complainant, is the parallel track. The court hearing on 11 May is the structural decision. Both matter. Both reinforce the same outcome — the law applies equally, the regulator enforces equally, and the company is examined independently.

📝 The signing channels — open all weekend

➡️ Primary: Wild CEO Substack chat thread

The signature thread is open in the Wild CEO Substack chat — “Shareholders’ Petition — Sign Here”. Reply with the five fields: full name, country, approximate shareholding, email, and the confirmation line. Jørgen co-manages the thread.

➡️ Secondary: Google Form

For shareholders preferring privacy, the Google Form link is pinned in the chat thread. Same five fields, private email and shareholding.

🗓️ Deadline: Saturday 2 May 2026, 23:59 CET 🚀 Filing: Monday 4 May 2026, morning — Finanstilsynet, Københavns Politi, with copies to Sø- og Handelsretten, Østre Landsret, Erhvervsstyrelsen, Advokatnævnet 🏛️ Court: Sunday 11 May 2026, 09:30 — Sø- og Handelsretten — Bo coordinates in-person attendance

🔚 Closing

This morning my sixteen-year-old daughter Victoria came on screen for thirty seconds. She had just walked out of her IGCSE Mathematics Paper 2 exam — and she had aced it. Full marks. She said hello to everyone watching. Then she went back to her day.

Tomorrow she has another exam. The day after, another. The 11 May court hearing happens. The petition gets filed Monday. The shareholders sign or they don’t sign. Mazanti-Andersen takes over or they don’t. Independence wins or it loses.

I am not asking you to trust me. I am asking you to trust an independent process. Run by an independent reconstructor. Examined by an independent regulator. Decided by independent judges.

That is the whole argument. Everything else is noise.

We did the hard part. We cleaned house. The investors are waiting. We proved a small company can fight back on the stock exchange. The rest — the noise about who is right and who is wrong — that is for an independent professional to sort out, not for the press to decide.

I do not have to come back as CEO. If reconstruction goes through, I can step aside. Someone else can carry the torch with zero debt and a clean balance sheet from day one.

Just put an independent person at the head of the company on 11 May. Let the noise die down. Let the truth speak through documents and through a process that is not corrupted by anyone’s prior conflict.

That is all I am asking.

Q.E.D.

Mark-Robert Abraham · Founder and former CEO, Shape Robotics A/S · 29 April 2026 · Day 53

Lead complainant on the shareholders’ petition: Jørgen Andreas Berg · joergen.andreas.berg@gmail.com

🤖 Wild CEO AI agent — trained on the full case archive — at wildceo.live.

📰 Børsen article of 29 April 2026, 17:00 CET — “Dødsstød eller slette al gæld? Ét gældsbrev på 217 mio. kr. kan ændre alt i Shape Robotics” — Johan Christensen, Kasper Ohmeyer, Simon Kirketerp, Leonora Beck — discussed in this dispatch under fair use for criticism and commentary.

🏷️ #ShapeRobotics #PhaseEducation #NasdaqCopenhagen #SHAPE #Reconstruction #MazantiAndersen #Independence #BiletLaOrdin #Aval #Geneva1930 #Vekselloven #BørsenArticle #SøOgHandelsretten #ØstreLandsret #KromannReumert #TeisGullitzWormslev #Tvangsopløsning #Likvidator #DanskeBank #MAR #Article17 #Finanstilsynet #DFSA #JørgenAndreasBerg #ShareholderPetition #WildCEO #GameOver #Day53 #TheIndependenceArgument

Get more from Mark Abraham | WildCEO in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Tonight on the livestream, my father Tiberiu was watching. I read the third paragraph of the letter aloud — the one where Teis writes that Sanako Oy went bankrupt at the beginning of 2026 on its own application. My father wrote into the chat in Romanian: hoțul strigă „hoții!” — the thief shouts „thieves!” He was right. That is the headline of this episode and it is the legal posture of the letter. Six allegations. One sentence in paragraph three that, under the right rule of Finnish company law and the right rule of Danish bankruptcy law, convicts the man who signed it.

But before I take you through the letter, you have to understand what happened in the last seventy-two hours. Because today’s letter is not free-standing. It is a counter-punch. And to see the punch you have to see the punch it is countering.

🧭 TL;DR

Since 13 March 2026: The DFSA case file J.nr. 25-026876 has
held, on the same docket, BOTH the
Company's MAR complaint against Teis
as trustee AND the trustee's own
MAR notifications against former
management — filed while he was still
kurator, without disclosing them
as selskabsmeddelelser.
(Source: Shape Robotics preliminary
response to DFSA, 13 March 2026.)

Friday, 24 April 2026: Teis Gullitz-Wormslev (Kromann Reumert),
now acting as liquidator, formally
advances those MAR notifications in
his own name before the DFSA.
The complaint is now his personally,
not the Company's instrument.

Sunday, 27 April (Day 51): DFSA confirms in writing that the
file J.nr. 25-026876 remains live
and active — both directions.
The DFSA is reading everything.

Same day, Day 51: Jørgen Andreas Berg, a Shape Robotics
shareholder, opens a Substack chat
thread and a Google Form to collect
signatures for a SHAREHOLDERS' market
abuse complaint AGAINST Teis.
Within hours: 15+ signatures.
The wave is moving.

Monday, 28 April (today): Teis sends me a six-point management
negligence letter. Built on materials
gathered during the unlawful 59-day
kuratorship that Østre Landsret already
struck down on 5 March 2026. Instructs
me to forward to the Company's D&O
insurer at Topdanmark.

Topdanmark D&O coverage: Does not extend to me personally.
Romanian citizen, resident in Romania.
The claim is aimed directly at me.

The killer paragraph: Letter, point 3, verbatim — "Sanako Oy
went bankrupt at the beginning of 2026
on its own application."
Under Finnish company law, that filing
required SHAREHOLDER authorisation.
The sole shareholder of Sanako Oy was
Shape Robotics A/S.
On 5 February 2026 (the filing date,
per Tivi.fi) the only person legally
able to exercise Shape Robotics A/S's
shareholder rights was the kurator.
The kurator was Teis Gullitz-Wormslev.
His own sentence convicts him.

Today's exhibits: Four Finnish primary documents — Alisa
Bank guarantee, Sanako loan velkakirja,
Finnvera state guarantee, Shape Robotics
parent guarantee — attached, with Visma
Sign certificate IDs. Every euro of the
EUR 4M Finnish facility is tied in
writing to the EUR 32M Bechtle Polska
contract. Allegation #4 dies on contact
with the documents.

Next milestone: 11 May 2026, 09:30 CET
Sø- og Handelsretten reconstruction
hearing on Elena Pasat's petition,
62.1% creditor majority.

The proverb: hoțul strigă „hoții!"
The thief shouts „thieves!"
(My father, livestream chat,
28 April 2026, 17:45 CET.)


🎭 The cast, in one paragraph

Mark-Robert Abraham — me. Founder and former CEO of Shape Robotics A/S, now Phase Education A/S. Romanian citizen, resident in Voluntari, Ilfov, Romania. Topdanmark D&O coverage does not extend to me personally because of that residence — I have explained this to the board many times. Tiberiu Abraham — my father. Watching tonight’s livestream from home. The man who, after I read paragraph three of the letter aloud, wrote the thief shouts „thieves!” into the chat. Jørgen Andreas Berg — a Shape Robotics shareholder. The retail investor who took it upon himself yesterday to open the chat thread, set up the Google Form, and start collecting signatures from other shareholders for a separate market abuse complaint against Teis. The wave he started is what today’s letter is trying to break. Teis Gullitz-Wormslev — partner, Kromann Reumert. Court-appointed kurator of Shape Robotics A/S between 6 January and 5 March 2026. Reappointed as liquidator in the tvangsopløsning on 17 April 2026. Same person. Different door. Author of today’s letter. The man whom the shareholders are now collecting signatures against.

📨 What the DFSA file actually contains — and why it matters

The DFSA case file J.nr. 25-026876 has never been a one-way street. Since 13 March 2026 — the date of the Company’s preliminary response to the regulator — the file has held two parallel records: the Company’s MAR complaint against Teis as former trustee, documenting zero Cision disclosures in 59 days and DKK 199 million in subsidiary write-downs without independent valuation; and the trustee’s own MAR notifications against the Company’s former management, filed while he was still kurator and never disclosed as selskabsmeddelelser to the market.

🔴 Read that again. The man who published zero market disclosures for 59 days as trustee of a listed company simultaneously filed notifications against management at the very regulator he was ignoring his own obligations toward — and did not disclose those notifications either. The Viktor email of 13 March 2026 specifically requested the DFSA provide the Company with: “(a) Full copy of any MAR-related complaint/notification filed by the trustee or Kromann Reumert; (b) Identification of the circumstances and possible violations referenced; (c) Date of receipt; (d) Status of any investigation.”

What changed on Friday, 24 April 2026 is that Teis — now reappointed as liquidator — formally advanced those notifications in his own name. The instrument shifted: it is no longer a filing made in the Company’s name during a trustee administration that was subsequently annulled. It is a personal filing by Advokat Teis Gullitz-Wormslev. The direction and the case reference (J.nr. 25-026876) remain the same. The author’s standing has changed.

On Sunday 27 April — yesterday, Day 51 — the DFSA confirmed in writing that the file remains live and active. That confirmation is what the 4,800 retail shareholders of Phase Education needed to see: the regulator is reading both sides of the docket. The DFSA is not his instrument. The DFSA is doing its job. And it will read Jørgen’s shareholder petition under the same obligation.

✊ The shareholder wave — Jørgen and the fifteen

Within a few hours of Day 51 going live, Jørgen Andreas Berg — a retail shareholder of Shape Robotics, now Phase Education — opened a Substack chat thread and a Google Form. The chat thread was titled, simply, Shareholders’ Petition — Sign Here. The Form had five fields: name, country, share count (approximate), email, and a free-text box for any additional context. Jørgen pinned the Form link at the top of the chat.

Then he started collecting signatures.

By the end of the night, fifteen shareholders had signed. By the time I woke up this morning, more had joined. The wave is moving in real time. The plan is straightforward: the petition will be filed at the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority and at Copenhagen Police — under the same statutory hooks the Company already used in March (MAR Articles 17 and 22–23, Capital Markets Act § 247 on disclosure obligations, and where applicable Retsplejeloven § 535 on serious economic crime). The shareholders are not asking the Company’s blessing. They are not waiting for the Company’s blessing. They have standing in their own right as the holders of the securities whose price was destroyed during the 59-day silent kuratorship. They are exercising it.

That standing matters. Because under MAR Article 22, every Member State competent authority has the obligation to investigate market abuse allegations regardless of the complainant’s identity or the complainant’s procedural fortunes. A shareholder petition cannot be withdrawn by the company’s liquidator. A shareholder petition is filed by the shareholders, in their own names, with their own signatures. It belongs to them. The DFSA has to read it. The police have to receive it. And neither can be cancelled by anyone other than the signers themselves.

Teis understood this within twenty-four hours.

That is why today’s letter exists.

📑 The letter that arrived this morning

It is on Kromann Reumert letterhead. Dated 28 April 2026. Signed by Advokat Teis Gullitz-Wormslev. Sagsnummer 5011457/KKR/BBEC. It opens with the disclosure that the liquidator has been examining the Company’s affairs “during the liquidation proceedings and during the previous bankruptcy proceedings“ — the same bankruptcy that was unanimously annulled, ex tunc, by Østre Landsret on 5 March 2026. The letter then sets out six numbered themes of alleged management negligence, characterises a number of transactions as having been made “without sufficient or sound basis of decision making,” asserts that Sanako Oy was “insolvent at the time of the [June 2025 share] exchange,” and instructs me to forward the claim to the Company’s D&O insurer at Topdanmark.

Translation Mark Robert Abraham Shape Robotics As Under Tvangsopløsning

145KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

🔴 Read the opening admission carefully.

The liquidator is using materials he gathered while operating an unlawful trusteeship that has since been struck down by the High Court. The mandate under which those materials were obtained does not exist. It never existed. Østre Landsret declared it null ex tunc. And yet the materials survive into the next proceeding, the moment the same person is reappointed under a new title. That is the procedural shape of today’s letter. It is the same shape as the bankruptcy decree of 6 January 2026, which Østre Landsret annulled three judges to zero on 5 March 2026 because the petition had never been lawfully served. The pattern repeats. The man stays the same. The court will see it.

Teis did not write this letter on Monday morning by accident. He wrote it because over the weekend he watched a shareholder named Jørgen open a chat thread and collect fifteen signatures and counting. The shareholder petition cannot be withdrawn by him. The signers do not work for him. The signers are not his clients. The signers are the people whose holdings he wrote down to zero on 26 January 2026, while he was kurator, in 20 days, with no independent valuation. They have a memory. They have standing. They are organising. So instead of attacking the petition — which he cannot — he attacks me. The CEO. The face. The sole person whose D&O insurance he knows does not cover, because he has the file. He is hoping that if he can intimidate me, the wave of fifteen signatures will hesitate. Twenty will become eighteen. Eighteen will become twelve. The petition will lose momentum. The DFSA will receive a smaller file. The police will receive a softer letter.

That is the calculation behind today’s letter.

It will not work. And the reason it will not work is in paragraph three of the letter itself.

📋 The six allegations — and the one that prosecutes its own author

I read all six on tonight’s livestream. They will all be answered in court on 11 May, and then, line by line, before Advokatnævnet, before SØIK if the police escalate, and before the Romanian courts where I am personally domiciled and where my counsel is already preparing the second tranche of the Finans defamation action. But for the readers of this Substack, here is the spine, with the one piece that needs to be understood today.

Allegation #1 — “Liquidity shortages and accounting conditions”

Teis writes that the Company has been “insolvent for a long period of time, including prior to the filing of bankruptcy petitions against the Company in the autumn of 2025.” The publicly recorded financial profile of Shape Robotics in autumn 2025 says the opposite. Audited 2024 revenue of DKK 302 million was up 76% year-on-year (Cision announcement no. 03-25, 3 April 2025). The H1 2025 interim report, published 28 August 2025, recorded the first positive operating profit in company history. On 3 November 2025, Shape Robotics signed a EUR 32 million Sale Purchase Framework Agreement with Bechtle direct Polska Sp. z o.o., with revenue recognition stated to commence “this month” (Cision c4260763). None of that is the profile of long-term insolvency. It is the profile of a company that was in the middle of the strongest commercial period in its history when a market-manipulation cascade — for which the DFSA itself issued a formal reprimand against Lars Topholm of Carnegie Investment Bank on 7 April 2026 (Cision c4331763) — collapsed the share price 87% in two weeks. The cascade originated outside the Company. The DFSA has confirmed this on the regulatory record. The letter does not mention the reprimand.

Allegation #2 — “Significant and on the present basis unusual transactions… with companies and persons associated with [the CEO]”

The transactions referenced are with the Romanian operating ecosystem. Romania generates 87.5% of group revenue. The transactions were audited by Beierholm. They were disclosed in the annual report under the IFRS related-parties standard. They were approved year after year by the board the liquidator now sits across the table from. They are also the basis on which the Company filed for reconstruction, which is on the docket at Sø- og Handelsretten for 11 May 2026 — and which the same liquidator opposed two weeks ago (see Day 47 — The Reconstruction the Liquidator Refused). The position is internally inconsistent: the very transactions the letter calls suspicious are the engine of the reconstruction the liquidator is trying to block. He cannot have it both ways. The court will see it.

Allegation #3 — Sanako Oy. This is the centre of gravity.

This is the paragraph my father reacted to on the livestream. Read it carefully:

⚖️ From the liquidator’s letter, point 3 (verbatim):

“We are investigating the circumstances surrounding the company’s acquisition of the Finnish subsidiary Sanako on June 25 , which has [been] completed through a share swap. At the time of the transaction, Sanako Oy was valued at approximately 8.6 million euros. It is our preliminary assessment that the company may in fact have been insolvent at the time of the exchange and that the price of the shares in the company may thus have been highly misleading… Sanako Oy went bankrupt at the beginning of 2026 on its own application. It is our opinion that the liquidity from Sanako Oy was used to cover the liquidity deficit in the remaining Shape Robotics group after its acquisition in June 2025.”

📄 Full liquidator’s letter (English translation, 4 pages PDF): https://ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/web/direct-files/attachments/71689698/d56a0202-0086-4904-9588-a19e5a64ddc5/Translation-Mark-Robert-Abraham-Shape-Robotics-AS-under-tvangsoplosning.pdf

The italicised, bolded sentence is the one that prosecutes its own author. Read it slowly. “On its own application” means a voluntary bankruptcy filing by Sanako Oy itself.

Three proof points follow.

📌 Proof one — the date.

The Finnish technology newspaper Tivi.fi (Suvi Korhonen, 12 February 2026, headline “Huippukannattava perinteikäs it-talo pyöritti 2 miljoonan bisnestä – Nyt se on konkurssissa” — “Highly profitable, traditional IT house running a EUR 2 million business — now in bankruptcy”) reports the filing date as 5 February 2026 at Turun käräjäoikeus. The Finnish credit register Suomen Asiakastieto records two entities now: Sanako Oy (Y-tunnus 1729128-9), 2024 EBIT margin 50.6%, equity ratio 72%, growth +18.8%; and Sanako Oy konkurssipesä (Y-tunnus 3598630-8), the bankruptcy estate, registered in 2026.

📌 Proof two — the Finnish corporate-law rule.

Under the Finnish Limited Liability Companies Act (Osakeyhtiölaki 624/2006), Chapter 1 §§ 5–8, the voluntary bankruptcy of a wholly-owned Oy is a corporate act of the highest order: it terminates the subsidiary’s separate juridical existence and falls outside the ordinary scope of management authority. It requires shareholder authorisation. The sole shareholder of Sanako Oy was Shape Robotics A/S.

📌 Proof three — who held the parent’s shareholder rights on 5 February 2026.

Under Konkurslov § 110, the Danish trustee represents the bankrupt estate “in any respect,” including the exercise of shareholder rights held by the parent. Between 6 January 2026 and 5 March 2026, the only person legally able to exercise Shape Robotics A/S’s shareholder rights over Sanako Oy was the kurator. The kurator was Teis Gullitz-Wormslev.

Reduced to its operative logic, the conclusion is automatic:

kurator(t)=Teis∀ t∈[6 Jan 2026, 5 Mar 2026]kurator(t)=Teis∀t∈[6 Jan 2026,5 Mar 2026]

filingSanako=5 Feb 2026  ∈  [6 Jan 2026, 5 Mar 2026]filingSanako=5 Feb 2026∈[6 Jan 2026,5 Mar 2026]

∴    authority(filingSanako)  =  kurator(5 Feb 2026)  =  Teis∴authority(filingSanako)=kurator(5 Feb 2026)=Teis

Either he authorised the filing — in which case the negligence the letter assigns me is, in fact, his — or he failed to prevent a Finnish-side filing made without his authorisation, which would itself be a § 110 failure to safeguard the estate’s most material asset. There is no third option. The very sentence he uses to accuse me convicts him. The DFSA file J.nr. 25-026876 will receive this episode tomorrow. So will Advokatnævnet. So will the police, under criminal complaint reference 0100-83986-10362-26.

The companion fact: the Company’s own valuation of Sanako at acquisition was EUR 8,632,574, established by an independent valuer under § 160 of the Danish Companies Act, registered at Erhvervsstyrelsen on 4 June 2025, admitted to trading on Nasdaq Copenhagen on 11 June 2025, and confirmed by an IFRS 3 purchase price allocation prepared by kAdvisory of Warsaw on 28 July 2025. The trustee then wrote that EUR 8.6 million subsidiary down to DKK 0 in Creditor Information no. 2 of 26 January 2026 — while he was kurator, in 20 days, with no independent valuation. The independent valuation was real. The write-down was the trustee’s act. The Sanako bankruptcy filing was the trustee’s act. The negligence the letter now wants to assign me is the negligence of the very acts he himself performed.

Allegation #4 — “Borrowing of Sanako in November 2025… EUR 4 million from Alisa, Veritas Pension and Finnvera”

The liquidator wants to examine this. So do I — gladly. I attach the four primary documents at the end of this episode for the public record. They are signed via Visma Sign with verifiable certificate IDs. They show three independent counterparties: Alisa Pankki Oyj (Finnish bank), Veritas Pension Insurance Company Ltd. (Finnish pension institution), and Finnvera Plc (the Finnish State export credit agency). They show that the Finnvera Guarantee no. 1063834 of 7 November 2025 is tied in writing — in Finnish, by the explicit name of the Polish counterparty — to “Allekirjoitettu sopimus Sanako Oy:n ja Bechtle direct Polska S.P z o.o.:n välillä rahoitettavaan tilaukseen liittyen” — “Signed contract between Sanako Oy and Bechtle direct Polska Sp. z o.o. relating to the order to be financed.” They show that the Alisa loan agreement no. 10632751 of 18 November 2025 records the loan purpose in the loan instrument itself: “Velallisen Puolasta saaman tilauksen toimittamiseksi” — “For the delivery of the Borrower’s order received from Poland.” They show that the parent company guarantee of 19 November 2025 was granted to all three Finnish counterparties for an aggregate maximum of EUR 4,000,000, with a Security Pooling Agreement among the lenders.

This is contract-specific export financing, vetted by an EU Member State’s export credit agency under the EU State aid framework, tied by name to a real Polish public-procurement contract under Poland’s Krajowy Plan Odbudowy programme, and disclosed to the Danish market in Cision announcement c4275825 of 2 December 2025 — six weeks before the bankruptcy decree. It was the most transparent, most vetted, most state-backed financing structure in Shape Robotics’ history. The only reason it failed is that the subsidiary it was designed to fund — Sanako Oy — entered voluntary bankruptcy on 5 February 2026, on the kurator’s watch, before delivery to Bechtle Polska could begin.

Allegation #4 dies on contact with the four exhibits attached to this post.

Allegation #5 — “Factoring agreement with UniCredit Bank in Romania… UniCredit raising a claim of [over] 160 million [DKK]”

UniCredit raised a parent-guarantee claim because the unlawful Danish bankruptcy of 6 January 2026 — annulled by Østre Landsret on 5 March 2026 as not lawfully served — triggered cross-default clauses in the Romanian factoring agreement. The Romanian operating company was paying the factoring on schedule. The bankruptcy in Denmark was the cross-default trigger. The trusteeship is now the liquidation. The chain runs from his own act to the claim he now characterises as evidence of my negligence. He created the cross-default. The cross-default created the parent-guarantee claim. The parent-guarantee claim is now in his letter as a basis to come after me personally. The architecture is circular. The court will see it.

Allegation #6 — “Whether the Company’s disclosure to the market… have been sufficient”

This is the point at which the letter becomes, unintentionally, honest.

🔴 The man who published zero selskabsmeddelelser through Cision in 59 days as kurator of a Main Market-listed company is now examining the disclosure conduct of the management he replaced.

🟢 Between 2024 and 6 January 2026, Shape Robotics published over thirty Cision announcements covering the Sanako acquisition, the Vietnam EUR 3.8M order, the Polish EUR 30M+ pipeline, the EUR 32M Bechtle framework, the EUR 4M Alisa/Veritas/Finnvera financing, the IRIS equity line, and every other material development. After 6 January 2026, under the kurator, Cision shows nothing.

The 4,800 retail shareholders of Shape Robotics know the difference. So does the DFSA. So does the market. So, eventually, will the courts.

⚖️ Konkurslov § 110 — what it actually says

For readers who have followed this investigation since Day 1, the doctrinal foundation is worth quoting in full. Konkurslov § 110, the operative provision of Danish bankruptcy law on trustee duties, reads in part:

“Kurator skal ved udførelsen af sit hverv varetage boets interesser og herunder sikre boets aktiver og foretage de fornødne skridt til værn mod uberettigede dispositioner over aktiverne samt repræsentere boet i enhver henseende.”

Translation: The kurator shall, in the performance of his duties, safeguard the interests of the estate, including securing the estate’s assets, taking the necessary steps to protect against unauthorised dispositions of the assets, and representing the estate in every respect.

Shape Robotics A/S’s shareholder rights in Sanako Oy were assets of the estate. The duty to secure the estate’s assets and to represent the estate in every respect extended to those rights. A voluntary bankruptcy filing by Sanako Oy on 5 February 2026 was a disposition of those rights. It either happened with the kurator’s authorisation, or it happened in his face without his intervention. Either way, the trail of duty leads back to the man whose letter today asks me to account for the consequences.

The cross-border layer makes the trap tighter, not looser. Regulation (EU) 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings does not apply to Denmark — Recital 33, by virtue of Denmark’s opt-out under Protocol 22 to the TFEU. A Danish kurator therefore has no automatic cross-border jurisdiction over a Finnish subsidiary. He holds only the parent’s shareholder rights as an asset of the Danish estate, and he exercises them under § 110. There is no other route. The route ran through him. The filing happened on his watch. The letter he wrote today is the evidence.

🗓️ The pattern, dated

I want to step back and ask you to see the pattern.

In December 2025 a market-manipulation cascade originated by a Carnegie analyst’s undisclosed shareholding — for which the DFSA issued a formal reprimand on 7 April 2026 (Cision c4331763) — collapsed the share price 87%. Trading was suspended on 19 December 2025.

On 6 January 2026 a creditor’s bankruptcy petition produced a decree, served not on the management but on the private digital address of a chairman who had resigned a month earlier. Trustee appointed: Teis Gullitz-Wormslev. The DocuSign envelope of the 28 November 2025 settlement with Danske Bank already designated him as “KURATOR” — 39 days before his official appointment (Cision c4327806).

On 22 January 2026 the trustee cancelled — without notice to the market or shareholders — the EGM scheduled for that date. The EGM was meant to authorise the IRIS equity line.

On 26 January 2026 Creditor Information no. 2 was issued: DKK 199 million in subsidiaries written to zero. No independent valuations.

On 5 February 2026 Sanako Oy filed for bankruptcy on its own application at Turun käräjäoikeus. No notice to Shape Robotics’ management. Mr. Gullitz-Wormslev, the Company has confirmed, was copied on the Finnish administrator’s communications from the start.

On 5 March 2026 Østre Landsret unanimously annulled the bankruptcy. Three judges. Case K 3337/25-F. The decree had never been lawfully served.

From 10 March 2026 onward the Company demanded the return of its records. The trustee returned nothing for over forty days.

On 7 April 2026 the DFSA issued its formal reprimand against Lars Topholm. The market-manipulation origin of the cascade was confirmed on the regulatory record.

On 14 April 2026 the EGM at 41.2% capital represented passed every resolution. The Company was renamed Phase Education A/S. Aurel Nețin was elected Chairman. Mandates to pursue D&O claims against the former board (90.6%) and against Carnegie (90.6%).

On 15 April 2026 Erhvervsstyrelsen filed for compulsory dissolution of the Company three hours before the EGM convened.

On 17 April 2026 Mr. Gullitz-Wormslev was reappointed — this time as liquidator in the tvangsopløsning. Same person. Different door.

On 22 April 2026 (Day 48) the liquidator withdrew the Company’s MAR complaint against the trustee from the DFSA file — without consulting management. The withdrawal was communicated to me by email only, by Viktor Stidsen Katic at the DFSA.

On Friday 24 April 2026 the liquidator, now acting in his personal capacity, formally advanced his earlier MAR notifications against the Company’s former management before the DFSA. Same case file (J.nr. 25-026876). New standing. New threat.

On Sunday 27 April 2026 (Day 51) the DFSA confirmed in writing that file J.nr. 25-026876 remains live and active — in both directions.

On the same day Sunday, 27 April 2026, Jørgen Andreas Berg opened the Substack chat thread and the Google Form. Within hours, fifteen shareholders had signed a petition — their own, not the Company’s — demanding the DFSA and the Copenhagen Police investigate the trustee for market abuse during the 59-day silent kuratorship.

Today, Monday 28 April 2026 (Day 52), the same liquidator who advanced his MAR notifications on Friday and was confronted yesterday by an organising shareholder wave sends me a personal management negligence letter built on materials he gathered while operating an unlawful trusteeship that the High Court had already annulled.

That is the pattern. Each step works because the previous step worked. The pattern has a shape, and the shape has a name in every language. Hoțul strigă „hoții!”

📊 The scoreboard after 54 days

Bankruptcy unanimously annulled                              ✓
   (Østre Landsret, K 3337/25-F, 5 March 2026)

Board elected at EGM                                         ✓
   (14 April 2026, 41.2% capital represented)

Company renamed Phase Education A/S                          ✓

EUR 16M committed                                            ✓
   (IRIS Capital LOI + Alumni Capital convertible)

DFSA reprimand against Carnegie analyst issued               ✓
   (7 April 2026, Cision c4331763)

Criminal complaint filed                                     ✓
   (ref. 0100-83986-10362-26)

Reconstruction hearing docketed                              ✓
   (11 May 2026, Sø- og Handelsretten,
    62.1% creditor majority via Elena Pasat)

Romanian defamation suit filed                               ✓
   (Tribunalul Ilfov, EUR 13.85M;
    second tranche EUR 45M in preparation)

Shareholder petition opened by Jørgen                        ✓
   (Substack chat + Google Form, 15+ signatures
    and growing as of 28 April 2026)

Four Finnish loan and guarantee documents now public         ✓
   (this episode)

Liquidator's negligence letter answered the same day         ✓
   (this episode)

🤲 For the 4,800

To the 4,800 retail shareholders of Phase Education A/S who have stayed with this company through the 87% collapse, the unlawful suspension, the silent trusteeship, the unanimous annulment, the dissolution attempt, the EGM, the reconstruction filing, the rename, the liquidator’s escalating DFSA manoeuvres, and now this personal negligence letter:

The letter that arrived this morning is a counter-punch, not new evidence. It is the same materials the trustee held in silence for 59 days, repackaged as a personal claim against me, dropped on my desk one day after fifteen of you started signing your own petition against him. It is timed. It is built on a voided file. And in its third paragraph, in a single Finnish-corporate-law sentence, it convicts its own author.

To Jørgen and the fifteen and counting: keep going. Your signatures are not cancellable by anyone. The DFSA must read your petition under MAR Article 22. The police must receive it under Retsplejeloven § 535. Neither of them works for the liquidator, however much he may wish otherwise. The wave you started on Sunday is the most consequential thing that has happened in this case since the High Court ruling of 5 March. It is what today’s letter is trying to break. It is also the thing today’s letter cannot break.

To my father, Tiberiu, who watched the livestream tonight and put it perfectly in three words of Romanian: thank you for the headline. Hoțul strigă „hoții!” It is the legal posture of the letter and it is the headline of this episode. The Substack archive is now seeded with the proverb. I expect it to outlive every single one of the six allegations.

🎯 What I am not saying

I am not saying that there were no failures of corporate governance in Shape Robotics’ history. The EGM of 14 April 2026 voted by 90.6% to pursue D&O claims against the former board and by 90.6% to pursue claims against Carnegie Investment Bank. Those mandates exist. The reconstruction filing of 11 May 2026 will adjudicate them.

I am not saying that today’s letter cannot be litigated. Topdanmark D&O coverage does not extend to me personally because I am a Romanian citizen resident in Romania, so any civil exposure on this letter would be litigated, if at all, before Romanian courts under the Brussels I bis Regulation (Regulation (EU) 1215/2012). I am here. I am visible. I am 100% transparent.

What I am saying is that the letter itself, as drafted and signed today, contains the seed of its own undoing in its third paragraph. That is a documentary fact. It will be in the file at Sø- og Handelsretten on 11 May 2026. It will be in the file at Advokatnævnet. It will be in the file at the Copenhagen Police under reference 0100-83986-10362-26. It will be in the file at Tribunalul Ilfov as evidence of the coordinated retaliatory campaign. It will be in this archive, on substack.wildceo.live, for the rest of time.

🔜 What happens next

Tomorrow, 29 April 2026. Today’s letter, the four Finnish primary documents, this episode, and a transcript of tonight’s livestream are filed with the DFSA under existing case J.nr. 25-026876, copied to Advokatnævnet (Disciplinary Board of the Danish Bar) and to the Copenhagen Police under criminal complaint reference 0100-83986-10362-26.

Through the week. Jørgen continues collecting signatures. The shareholder petition will be filed on Monday 4 May 2026 at the DFSA and at Copenhagen Police. If you are a Shape Robotics / Phase Education shareholder and you want to sign, the Substack chat thread is the place to go.

11 May 2026, 09:30 CET. Reconstruction hearing at Sø- og Handelsretten. The reconstruction is built on the very transactions today’s letter characterises as suspicious — which is to say, the legitimacy of those transactions is now squarely before the court that will decide whether to keep this Company alive.

Mid-May 2026. Romanian counsel SCPA Pârgaru, Neacșu și Asociații files the second tranche of the defamation action (EUR 45 million) at Tribunalul Ilfov. Today’s letter is added to the dossier as evidence of the coordinated campaign that began with the Finans articles in December 2025.

Continuing. GAME OVER continues, daily. Day 53 tomorrow.

📎 The four Finnish exhibits

Filed with this episode and verifiable via direct Visma Sign certificate links:

📑 Exhibit 1. Alisa Bank On Demand Guarantee Undertaking, 11 September 2025. Shape Robotics A/S guarantor for EUR 700,000 of Sanako Oy receivables financing. Visma Sign certificate 4609d232-e96c-4be9-a352-29e8b0cccae1.

📑 Exhibit 2. Alisa Pankki Velkakirja, Loan Agreement no. 10632751, 18 November 2025. EUR 2,000,000 to Sanako Oy. Stated purpose, in Finnish: “For the delivery of the Borrower’s order received from Poland.” Visma Sign certificate 0f455f60-cfb5-4e25-866e-387965986a15.

7100018420 1063834 Finnvera Guarantee Sanako

602KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Shape Robotics Parent Company Guarantee Final

549KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Alisa Bank Oyj

585KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Sanako Oy Alisa Velkakirja

597KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

📑 Exhibit 3. Finnvera Guarantee no. 1063834, 7 November 2025. 80% guarantee (EUR 1.6M) of the Alisa loan, tied by name in writing to “signed contract between Sanako Oy and Bechtle direct Polska Sp. z o.o.” Visma Sign certificate f268d071-1a68-4374-8965-a0737abcdbbc.

📑 Exhibit 4. Shape Robotics A/S Parent Company Guarantee, 19 November 2025. EUR 4,000,000 aggregate to Alisa Bank, Veritas Pension Insurance, and Finnvera, with Security Pooling Agreement among the three lenders. Visma Sign certificate 76b84a6e-858b-4ddc-80b2-08c92e48d1e0.

Cross-referenced filings on Cision/Nasdaq Copenhagen: c4214859 (Polish framework, 24 September 2025), c4260763 (EUR 32M Bechtle Polska, 3 November 2025), c4275825 (EUR 4M Alisa/Veritas/Finnvera financing structure disclosure, 2 December 2025), c4321208 (no bankruptcy petition lawfully served, 13 March 2026), c4326119 (bridge financing, 24 March 2026), c4327806 (resolution terms for EIFO and Danske Bank, including the 28 November 2025 DocuSign envelope), c4331763 (DFSA reprimand against Lars Topholm, 7 April 2026).

External sources: Tivi.fi (Suvi Korhonen, 12 February 2026); Suomen Asiakastieto Oy; Konkurslov § 110; Osakeyhtiölaki 624/2006, Chapter 1 §§ 5–8; Konkurssilaki 120/2004; Regulation (EU) 2015/848, Recital 33; Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis); Shape Robotics A/S preliminary response to DFSA, 13 March 2026, J.nr. 25-026876.

📚 The full investigation

Day 51: The Email That Confirms It | Day 50: Zero Practice | Day 49: The Pre-Appointed | Day 48: The Email Viktor Sent Only to Me | Day 47: The Reconstruction the Liquidator Refused | Day 46: A Question of Procedure | Day 41: The Six Claims | Day 39: The Genoptagelse | Day 38: The Resurrection | Day 35: This Is Not Negligence. This Is a Modus Operandi. | Day 1: The Trustee, The Bank, and 3.7 Million Crowns That Belong to Us

🔭 For Teis Gullitz-Wormslev and Kromann Reumert

If any sentence in this article is factually inaccurate, please write to me at mark@shaperobotics.com. I will publish a correction in the next edition with the same prominence as the original claim.

I have taken care to stay strictly within the four corners of the documents referenced — the DFSA correspondence in case J.nr. 25-026876, the court rulings of 17 April 2026 and 5 March 2026, Company Announcement No. 10-26 of 7 April 2026, the four Finnish primary documents attached, the Tivi.fi reporting of 12 February 2026, the Suomen Asiakastieto register entries, and the public filings already published in this series. Nothing here is speculation. Everything here can be verified from the linked and attached materials.

🔔 Subscribe

Subscribe to GAME OVER for real-time updates as the reconstruction hearing of 11 May 2026 approaches and as Jørgen’s shareholder petition makes its way to the DFSA and the police. Every filing. Every email. Every receipt. No paywall on the truth. Day 53 tomorrow.

🔚 Q.E.D.

The man who held the documents wrote a letter saying the documents prove me negligent. The same letter, in the third paragraph, says the Finnish subsidiary filed for bankruptcy on its own application — during the exact 59 days when the only person legally able to authorise that application was him.

✊ Quod erat demonstrandum.

The thief shouts “thieves!”

Shape Robotics A/S (now operating as Phase Education A/S)
CVR: DK38322656 | Nasdaq Copenhagen: SHAPE | ISIN: DK0061273125

Investor Relations: Mark-Robert Abraham, Founder and CEO
E: mark.robert.abraham@gmail.com | T: +40 749 288 688 | W: wildceo.live | substack.wildceo.live

Mark-Robert Abraham is the Founder and former CEO of Shape Robotics A/S (now Phase Education A/S). This publication documents an ongoing legal dispute involving the Company. Nothing in this publication constitutes legal or financial advice. All statements are made in good faith on the basis of publicly available information, primary documents, and direct experience. The author reserves all legal rights.

Previous episodes: Day 50: Zero Practice · Day 49: The Pre-Appointed · Day 35: This Is Not Negligence · The Man Who Knew the Rules · Q.E.D. — How Three Judges Proved What One CEO Kept Saying

Fifty-one days into a war I didn’t start.

Today the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority — Finanstilsynet, J.nr. 25-026876 — wrote to me twice. Not a press release. Not a leak. Two formal email replies from Viktor Stidsen Katic, Legal Officer in the Capital Market Division, in the same regulatory case file.

I’m going to walk you through both emails. Then I’m going to show you what they mean for Teis Gullitz-Wormslev, partner at Kromann Reumert, court-appointed likvidator of Shape Robotics A/S. And then I’m going to ask you — as a shareholder — to sign your name to a petition that goes to Finanstilsynet and Københavns Politi on Monday morning.

Jørgen Andreas Berg leads. Bo coordinates the in-person presence at Sø- og Handelsretten on 11 May. The documents are ready. We need the signatures.

📨 At 10:41 CET, the regulator answered the question I had been asking for months

The first email arrived this morning. One sentence:

“As long as the company has shares admitted to trading on Nasdaq Copenhagen, the requirements in the Market Abuse Regulation still apply to the company.”

— Viktor Stidsen Katic, Legal Officer, Capital Market Division, Finanstilsynet, 27 April 2026 at 10:41 CET, in J.nr. 25-026876.

That sentence, in writing, in a numbered case, from the legal officer of Finanstilsynet’s Capital Market Division.

I’ve been writing about MAR Article 17 since January. I’ve cited it in fourteen episodes. I’ve named the four parallel kurator cases — Odico, Seluxit, Audientes, SPARK — where other lawyers from other firms understood the obligation and complied. I’ve shown you Teis’s own SBS announcement from 2024 where he himself complied with MAR Article 17 over a DKK 0.30 share-class change, while ten months later writing DKK 199 million to zero in silence for 59 days as kurator.

Today, for the first time, the regulator confirmed — in writing, in a numbered case file — that the obligation applies. To this company. While suspended. Right now.

⚡ Then I asked the harder question. The reply at 14:27 closed the last door

I read Viktor’s first email. The man gave me a small finger to help. I took the whole hand.

So I wrote back. Four minutes later. Devil’s advocate question — the one Teis or his defenders would inevitably raise:

“As the shares are suspended for trading, is this equivalent to not admitted to trading? Or how should we read your response? As long as we are listed on Nasdaq we need to follow MAR, even if trading is suspended due to liquidation or rekonstruktion or bankruptcy or any other event?”

Four hours later. Same case file. Same legal officer.

“The issuer’s obligations under MAR continue to apply regardless of any suspension and the reason behind it.”

— Viktor Stidsen Katic, Legal Officer, Capital Market Division, Finanstilsynet, 27 April 2026 at 14:27 CET, in J.nr. 25-026876.

Fw J

2.8MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Read that sentence twice. Then a third time. In those eleven words, the regulator just dismantled every excuse Teis Gullitz-Wormslev or anyone else at Kromann Reumert could possibly have offered.

Suspension does not lift it. The reason for suspension does not lift it. Tvangsopløsning does not lift it. Konkurs does not lift it. Rekonstruktion does not lift it. Any other event does not lift it.

The MAR obligation belongs to whoever is the issuer’s competent organ at any given moment. Since 17 April 2026 at the Skifteret hearing, that organ is Teis. He is the issuer. He is the one MAR Article 17 binds.

🎯 The scoreboard: 59 days as kurator, 10+ days as likvidator

Two roles. One pattern. Same advokat. Same selskab. Same conduct.

Period Capacity Days MAR-meddelelser published 6 Jan – 5 Mar 2026 Kurator (annulled bankruptcy estate) 59 ✕ Zero 17 Apr 2026 – present Likvidator (compulsory dissolution) 10+ ✕ Zero

In the first period, Teis was simultaneously running a compulsory bankruptcy administration and a parallel set of court appointments. Asset valuations happened. Creditor negotiations happened. EIFO contacts happened. Nasdaq Surveillance correspondence happened. He published nothing on Cision, nothing on Globe Newswire, nothing on any regulated information service.

That period is already under DFSA investigation in J.nr. 25-026876.

In the second period — the one that started ten days ago — eleven discrete price-sensitive events have arisen within the company’s sphere. Eleven events that, individually, any compliance officer at any listed company in Europe would file as Inside Information under MAR Article 7.

Events undisclosed by the likvidator (17–27 April 2026):

✕ The tvangsopløsningskendelse itself (17 April) ✕ His own appointment as likvidator (17 April) ✕ The kæreskrift to Østre Landsret, case SK-524/2026-SHR (21 April) ✕ The reconstruction petition with 62.1% creditor majority (21 April) ✕ Retsassessor Degnbol’s letter with four procedural admissions (22 April) ✕ His own request to Finanstilsynet to drop the MAR case J.nr. 25-026876 against himself as former kurator (22 April) ✕ The scheduling of the rekonstruktion hearing at Sø- og Handelsretten, 11 May 2026 at 09:30 (23 April) ✕ The fogedretten decision FS M4-2715/2026 on the Pasat veksel (27 April) ✕ The Carnegie civil claim status ✕ The two Finanstilsynet written confirmations themselves (27 April) ✕ The shareholders’ petition being filed Monday 4 May 2026

Eleven events in ten days. Zero meddelelser.

The first period was a pattern. The second period — same advokat, same selskab, same conduct — is a method.

⚖️ Why this is not negligence — and why § 247 matters

Lov om kapitalmarkeder § 247 makes forsætlig overtrædelse of MAR Article 17 a criminal offence. Bøde or fængsel up to one year and six months. Grov uagtsomhed — gross negligence — falls in the same range with a slightly lower threshold.

Forsætligheden — the intentionality — rests on three facts that together close the door.

🔑 Proof One. He is a fast-kurator-advokat at Kromann Reumert.

Partner since 2014. Holds a fast-kurator seat at Sø- og Handelsretten since 2024, succeeding Marianne Philip. Børsret and selskabsret are foundational competencies for his profession. He cannot claim ignorance of MAR Article 17 — he has applied it himself, in his own SBS likvidation, ten months before he became Shape Robotics’ kurator. There exists, on Globe Newswire, a Nasdaq announcement signed two@kromannreumert.com that classifies a DKK 0.30 share-class adjustment as Inside Information.

Teis Gullitz-Wormslev is two.

🔑 Proof Two. He has done the same thing twice.

Same advokat. Same selskab. Same omission. First 59 days as kurator. Now 10+ days as likvidator. A single omission, perhaps, can be negligence. A repeated, identical pattern across two separate court appointments — for the same listed company, with the same shareholder body, with the same reporting infrastructure — is not.

🔑 Proof Three. He asked Finanstilsynet to drop the case against himself.

On 22 April 2026, Teis as likvidator wrote to Finanstilsynet asking the regulator to drop the MAR case J.nr. 25-026876 against himself as former kurator. That request is the single piece of evidence that closes the door on any negligence defence.

He knew. He continued anyway. § 247.

The chain is complete. He knew. He continued. The regulator just confirmed the obligation today. In writing. Twice.

✊ The shareholders’ petition

I am one shareholder. The petition is stronger if it comes from many. The court hearing on the rekonstruktion is on 11 May 2026 at 09:30 at Sø- og Handelsretten. We have five days to collect signatures and file Monday morning.

Two documents are ready. Both bilingual DA/EN. Both two pages. Both written so any shareholder reads them in five minutes.

📄 Document 1 — Aktionær-petition til Finanstilsynet Asks the regulator to consolidate this petition with the existing cases J.nr. 25-026876 and J.nr. 26-005434, to issue formal påtale, to assess bødestraf under § 248, and to forward the file to Advokatnævnet — the Disciplinary Board of the Bar.

📄 Document 2 — Aktionær-politianmeldelse til Københavns Politi A criminal complaint under lov om kapitalmarkeder § 247. Requests consolidation with the existing case 0100-83986-10362-26 against Teis (filed in March), the opening of investigation, and assessment for SØIK escalation — the Special Prosecutor for Serious Economic and International Crime.

Both PDFs are attached at the bottom of this dispatch.

🎯 Lead complainant: Jørgen Andreas Berg. Shareholder. He has my full trust. He coordinates the petition thread on Substack chat. Reach him directly at joergen.andreas.berg@gmail.com.

🏛️ Bo coordinates the in-person presence at Sø- og Handelsretten on 11 May 2026 at 09:30. If you are in Copenhagen that morning — be there. The court reads attendance as a signal of seriousness.

🎓 Jørgen also coordinates the academic expert opinion — a written statement from a professor of capital markets law at a Danish university, to be attached as a third document supporting the petitions. If you are connected to the legal academic community in Denmark, write to him.

📝 How to sign — the embedded petition

Substack does not allow custom embedded forms in posts. So we are using two parallel channels that work:

➡️ Primary: The Wild CEO chat thread

The signature thread is open in the Wild CEO Substack chat. Click the chat icon at the top of this post, find the thread titled “Shareholders’ Petition — Sign Here”, and reply with these five fields as a single message:

1. Full name

2. Country of residence

3. Approximate number of Shape Robotics shares held or formerly held

4. Email

5. Confirmation: “I support the shareholders’ petition and authorize my name to be added to the list filed with Finanstilsynet and Københavns Politi.”

Jørgen co-manages the thread. He will compile the list daily and add to the official annex of both petitions.

➡️ Secondary: The Google Form

For shareholders who prefer not to comment publicly in the chat, the same five fields are available in a private Google Form: https://forms.gle/qnTcuCgAYmmU9pdLA — your name still appears in the petition annex but your email and shares stay private.

🗓️ Deadline: Saturday 2 May 2026, 23:59 CET.

🚀 Filing: Monday 4 May 2026, morning. Finanstilsynet, Københavns Politi, with copies to Sø- og Handelsretten, Østre Landsret, Erhvervsstyrelsen, Advokatnævnet.

🔚 Closing

This is not personal. I have nothing personal against Teis Gullitz-Wormslev as a man. I have something procedural against him as a court-appointed officer who is, by the regulator’s own written admission today, in continuing breach of the law that protects 4,800 shareholders in 17 countries.

The regulator told us. Twice. Today. In writing. Same case file. Four hours apart.

If a partner at Denmark’s largest law firm, holding a fast-kurator seat at Sø- og Handelsretten, can ignore MAR Article 17 for 59 days as kurator and then again for 10+ days as likvidator while the regulator confirms in writing that the obligation applies — and the system does nothing — then there is no listed-company law in Denmark. Not for us. Not for any of the 4,800. Not for any future Nasdaq Copenhagen issuer.

We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for the law to apply to the person who is, right now, supposed to enforce it.

Sign. Forward to other shareholders. Be in the chat. Be at the court on 11 May.

Q.E.D.

Mark-Robert Abraham · Founder and former CEO, Shape Robotics A/S · 27 April 2026 · Day 51

Lead complainant on the shareholders’ petition: Jørgen Andreas Berg · joergen.andreas.berg@gmail.com

📎 Documentation attached at the bottom of this post: (1) Aktionær-petition til Finanstilsynet — bilingual DA/EN — 2 pages (2) Aktionær-politianmeldelse til Københavns Politi — bilingual DA/EN — 2 pages

Shareholders Petition Dfsa 27apr2026

39.3KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Shareholders Criminalcomplaint Politi 27apr2026

40.3KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

🤖 Wild CEO AI agent — trained on the full case archive — at wildceo.live. Ask it anything.

🏷️ #ShapeRobotics #PhaseEducation #NasdaqCopenhagen #SHAPE #MAR #Article17 #Finanstilsynet #DFSA #SøOgHandelsretten #ØstreLandsret #KromannReumert #TeisGullitzWormslev #Tvangsopløsning #Likvidator #Konkursloven #CapitalMarketsAct #Paragraf247 #Advokatnævnet #SØIK #ShareholderPetition #JørgenAndreasBerg #WildCEO #GameOver #Day51

Get more from Mark Abraham | WildCEO in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Nasdaq Copenhagen: SHAPE | CVR: DK38322656 | ISIN: DK0061273125

In 25 years of Nasdaq Copenhagen main-market history, the Maritime and Commercial Court has handled exactly two non-fraud bankruptcies of ordinary listed companies. Two. Out of 17 total cases. Out of a quarter-century. The court that placed Shape Robotics into compulsory dissolution on 17 April 2026 is, statistically, operating at the outer edge of its own experience — and the law firm already seated in its courtroom is the one that keeps the institutional memory the court itself does not have. This is not a victim’s dispatch. This is the first company that refused to die quietly. And that is why today’s numbers matter for every founder on the Danish main market, now and going forward.

This Company Announcement is published pursuant to the Nasdaq Copenhagen Rulebook, Section 3.1, and constitutes a disclosure of material developments regarding the ongoing trading suspension and the appeal proceedings in Case SK-524/2026-SHR before Østre Landsret.

The full GAME OVER investigation is available at substack.wildceo.live.

50 days since the Eastern High Court of Denmark unanimously annulled the bankruptcy of Shape Robotics A/S.

I spent yesterday going through 25 years of the public record. Statstidende. Danmarks Statistik. Finanstilsynet’s bank-resolution archive. Kammeradvokaten’s case history. Plesner’s, Kromann Reumert’s, Gorrissen Federspiel’s published trustee rosters. Every main-market bankruptcy I could verify between 2000 and 2025.

The count that emerged is the frame for every argument in Case SK-524/2026-SHR.

Seventeen. Ten. Seven. Four. Two.

Seventeen companies went bankrupt on the main market of Nasdaq Copenhagen in those 25 years. Ten were banks — processed through Finansiel Stabilitet, under a completely separate legal regime, with specialised counsel and specialised procedure. That leaves seven non-financial cases. Of those seven, only four were handled at Sø- og Handelsretten — the court that now holds my company’s file. And of those four, two were outright fraud cases — IT Factory (Stein Bagger, 2008) and O.W. Bunker (catastrophic hedging losses, 2014) — where the company was already dead when the trustee arrived.

That leaves two real cases. In 25 years. In the court that placed Shape Robotics into compulsory dissolution on 17 April 2026.

Read that carefully. Because everything that follows — the Kromann Reumert attorneys already seated in the courtroom, the half-page letter with four procedural admissions, the misspelled name on the formal correspondence to the Eastern High Court — is the direct consequence of one fact: this court has never done what it was asked to do to us. It is still learning. And we are the first company that refused to let it learn in silence.

🧭 TL;DR

The inventory:           17 main-market bankruptcies in 25 years
                         on Nasdaq Copenhagen

The breakdown:           10 banks (Finansiel Stabilitet regime)
                          7 non-financial

At Sø- og Handelsretten:  4 non-financial cases
Of those four:            2 frauds (IT Factory, OW Bunker)
                          2 real comparable cases

The frequency:           ~1 non-fraud main-market bankruptcy
                         at this court every 12–15 years

Shape Robotics is:       the first case in the history of this
                         court of an operating, listed,
                         fully-capitalised company placed into
                         § 225 dissolution while simultaneously
                         appealing a prior annulled bankruptcy
                         before Østre Landsret

Institutional memory:    Kromann Reumert — fast-kurator seat at
                         this same court, unbroken 1989–2026
                         (37 years)

The judge on 17 April:   Helle Degnbol, retsassessor
                         — no public record of a main-market
                         listed-company case in her prior docket

What this explains:      Not the judge's integrity. Her practice.
                         Not the firm's tactics. Its memory.
                         Not our procedure. Our refusal to die quietly.

Next milestone:          Monday 11 May 2026, 09:30
                         Reconstruction hearing at
                         Sø- og Handelsretten

⚖️ The Numbers That Reframe Everything

Let me walk you through the inventory, because the numbers are the argument.

Denmark records approximately 2,500–3,000 corporate bankruptcies per year. In 2023, the peak post-COVID year, the figure was 3,078 in active companies. In 2024, it was 2,491. In a standard decade, roughly 25,000 bankruptcies, almost entirely ApS, IVS, and small A/S — construction, retail, hospitality, startups that never reached scale.

Of those, how many involved a company whose shares traded on the main market of Nasdaq Copenhagen? Not First North. Not Spotlight. Not OTC. The main market — where transparency obligations are highest, where Market Abuse Regulation applies at its fullest, where the companies listed alongside mine are Novo Nordisk, Ørsted, Carlsberg, and A.P. Møller-Mærsk.

Seventeen. In 25 years.

Of those 17:

• 10 were banks — Roskilde Bank, Amagerbanken, Fionia, Capinordic, Eik Bank Danmark, Fjordbank Mors, Max Bank, Sparekassen Østjylland, Tønder Bank, Østjydsk Bank — all processed through Finansiel Stabilitet, under the banking resolution regime that has nothing in common with the procedure applied to Shape Robotics.

• Seven were non-financial — Memory Card Technology (2001), IT Factory (2008), O.W. Bunker (2014), Stones Invest (2009), and a tail of smaller industrial and real-estate cases.

At Sø- og Handelsretten specifically: four cases. IT Factory (fraud). O.W. Bunker (fraud/catastrophic loss). Stones Invest (handled by Mazanti-Andersen). And one older industrial case.

The comparable cases — a real, operating company placed into insolvency at Sø- og Handelsretten that was not already dead from fraud — reduce to essentially two across the whole 25-year window.

And Shape Robotics is neither of them. Because Shape Robotics is still operating. Still serving 300,000 students. Still employing a team across Denmark, Romania, Poland, and Finland. Still holding EUR 16 million in committed capital. Still listed on Nasdaq Copenhagen with 4,800 shareholders across 17 countries.

💡 Callout — What the court usually sees

🟢 A typical § 225 compulsory dissolution hearing at Sø- og Handelsretten. An ApS with no registered office, no management, no filed accounts, no activity. A shell created for a single transaction in 2019 and forgotten. The administrative template closes it in 20 minutes. The registrar updates CVR. The file is done before lunch.

🔴 What the court was asked to do on 17 April 2026. A Nasdaq-listed EdTech company with 4,800 shareholders, EUR 16M in committed capital, three months of High Court litigation on its back, a pending reconstruction petition filed three days earlier by the majority creditor, and a founder who flew in from Bucharest to present documented proof that the § 225 defects had already been cured.

These are not the same hearing. They were never the same hearing. But the template that was applied to one was applied to the other — and the law firm that had 37 years of institutional memory on this specific panel chose not to point out the difference.

📜 This Is Not a Victim’s Dispatch

Let me be completely clear, because the framing matters. This is not a complaint. This is a demonstration.

I said on yesterday’s community livestream — and I say it again here in writing — I do not believe retsassessor Helle Degnbol is corrupt. I do not believe there was a phone call, a brown envelope, a prior instruction. I believe she is a versed judge of Danish insolvency at the scale she regularly sees it, and that her integrity is not in question.

What is in question is whether standard Danish insolvency practice — competent for the 2,500 small-company bankruptcies the court processes every year — is competent for this case. The numbers above say it is not. And the numbers are not opinion. They are the public record.

I also want to say something about the framing of this whole fight, because it is Friday, and on Fridays I owe my shareholders the truth about how I see this.

Shape Robotics is not a victim. Shape Robotics is the first main-market Danish company in recent memory that refused to die quietly.

There is a well-established pattern in the Danish main-market bankruptcies of the last 25 years: a company fails, a trustee from one of the fast-kurator panel firms is appointed, the estate is wound down, the shareholders lose everything, the news cycle lasts one week, and the file closes. This is what Memory Card Technology looked like. It is what IT Factory looked like. It is what O.W. Bunker looked like. It is what the banks looked like. The pattern is quiet and fast and final.

We broke that pattern on 5 March 2026, when the Eastern High Court unanimously annulled our first konkursdekret. We broke it again on 14 April 2026, when we held an EGM, changed the registered office, elected a new board, and filed every remedy with the Danish Business Authority the same afternoon. We broke it a third time on 17 April 2026, when I flew from Bucharest to Copenhagen to attend the § 225 hearing in person with documented proof. We broke it a fourth time on 21 April, when we filed the appeal in Case SK-524/2026-SHR. And we will break it again on Monday 11 May 2026, when the reconstruction petition is argued.

“I did not choose to die quietly. That is why this court is still learning what main-market compulsory dissolution actually requires — and why the numbers it confronts now are numbers it has never had to answer for before.”

🔍 The Experience Gap Is Demonstrable

I am not speculating about the court’s prior exposure to cases like ours. The evidence is on the record.

The 22 April 2026 letter from retsassessor Degnbol to Østre Landsret — four paragraphs, half a page of substance, the subject of yesterday’s Day 49 dispatch — contains four direct admissions of procedural defect in her own words. These are not conclusions I am drawing from outside the document. They are what she wrote:

“Kærende blev vejledt om sandhedspligt og strafansvar, hvilket i øvrigt ikke fremgår af retsbogen.”

“The appellant was warned about the duty to tell the truth and criminal liability, which, for that matter, does not appear in the court record.”

§ 181(1) of the Administration of Justice Act requires the oath warning to appear in the record. It does not. In a standard shell-company compulsory dissolution, this would not matter — there is no substantive testimony to authenticate. In a main-market listed-company case, where the founder’s statements are later used as part of the reasoning for the dissolution order, it matters enormously. The procedural template was built for the first case. It was applied to the second.

“Det anførte i retsbogen er kun en del af det forklarede.”

“What is stated in the court record is only part of what was explained.”

The record is incomplete. Again — in the ordinary shell-company case, this is immaterial because the hearing substance is thin. In a main-market case with a pending reconstruction petition, cross-border creditors, and 4,800 shareholders, an incomplete record is a structural defect.

“Retsmødet ikke blev lydoptaget.”

“The hearing was not audio-recorded.”

No audio record. Sø- og Handelsretten has the technical capability to audio-record hearings. It chose not to use it in this case. In an ordinary shell-company dissolution, there is nothing to record. In a hearing that will be appealed to Østre Landsret with Article 6(1) ECHR questions pending, the absence of an audio record is the absence of the primary source of truth.

“Enkelte gange spurgte jeg på dansk advokat Kamilla Krebs og advokat Albert Mungo Madsen, hvad de ønskede tilføjet retsbogen.”

“On several occasions I asked, in Danish, attorneys Kamilla Krebs and Albert Mungo Madsen what they wished to add to the court record.”

Side-discussions in Danish with Kromann Reumert attorneys while I was being questioned in English, under criminal liability, as a non-Danish-speaking foreign CEO who had flown in that morning. This is the admission that cannot be explained by standard-practice drift. This is what institutional-memory asymmetry produces in real time: the judge, inexperienced with the case type, defers to the firm in the room that has 37 years of standing practice on this court’s panel. That firm is Kromann Reumert. The partner who holds the seat is Teis Gullitz-Wormslev — the same partner who would be appointed liquidator at the end of the same hearing.

Four admissions. In half a page. Every one of them is intelligible only if the court was operating outside its ordinary practice. In its ordinary practice, none of these defects would matter. In our case, every one of them is a ground for annulment.

📋 Where Experience Actually Sits in That Room

I want to do something here that yesterday’s dispatch did not do, because yesterday’s framing risked reading as asymmetric victimhood. It is not asymmetric victimhood. It is an asymmetry of competence in our type of case, and the record shows which direction that asymmetry runs.

On 17 April 2026, there were four categories of presence in that courtroom.

The court itself — retsassessor Helle Degnbol, whose docket, on the public record, shows no prior main-market listed-company case. Standard Sø- og Handelsretten retsassessor practice is shell-company dissolutions, asset-less konkursboer, and small-A/S liquidation matters.

The appointed liquidator, after the hearing — Teis Gullitz-Wormslev, Partner at Kromann Reumert, head of the firm’s insolvency division since replacing Susanne Schjoldager. Fast-kurator at Sø- og Handelsretten since 1 January 2024, succeeding Marianne Philip who held the seat from 1989. Kromann Reumert’s continuous presence on this specific panel: 37 years.

The Kromann Reumert team physically present in the courtroom before any ruling — attorneys Kamilla Krebs and Albert Mungo Madsen, acting under the firm’s institutional memory on this panel. They were not there because they had a client of record at the opening of the hearing. They were there because the firm keeps that seat.

Me — a Romanian founder who flew in that morning with documentation proving the § 225 defects had been cured three days earlier, and whose prior exposure to this specific court’s procedures was, until that hearing, zero.

The court is learning on our case. Kromann Reumert is not learning — Kromann Reumert is executing the same institutional pattern it has executed on this court’s panel since Marianne Philip took her seat in 1989, the year I was three years old.

📌 Callout — The experience inventory, by the numbers

• 37 years — Kromann Reumert’s unbroken fast-kurator seat at Sø- og Handelsretten (Philip 1989–2023, Gullitz-Wormslev 2024–present) • ~2 — comparable non-fraud main-market listed-company cases at this court in 25 years • 4 — procedural admissions in the retsassessor‘s own 22 April letter • 0 — audio recording of the 17 April hearing • 0 — ID checks performed at the hearing on the founder testifying under criminal liability • 1 — correct spelling of “Mark-Robert Abraham” in the letter to Østre Landsret (the other one reads “Mark-Robert Abrahamsen”) • 4,800 — shareholders whose value depends on the outcome of Case SK-524/2026-SHR • EUR 16M — committed capital whose return depends on the same case

This is not a judge who failed. This is a judge whose ordinary practice did not prepare her — could not prepare her — for a case the court has seen essentially twice in 25 years. And this is not a firm that cheated. This is a firm that executed a template it has operated on this panel for 37 years, in a case where the template did not fit.

The gap between those two facts is what Østre Landsret is being asked to address.

🗓️ What Happened Yesterday on the Community Livestream

For shareholders who were not on the Friday community call, here are the three things that moved yesterday that matter for 11 May:

1. Finanstilsynet confirmed, in writing, that the market-abuse case against Teis Gullitz-Wormslev remains active. On 22 April, Viktor Hjortdal Kromphardt, Head of Legal at the Danish FSA, emailed me in reply to my 15 March 2026 complaint on Market Abuse Regulation Article 17 disclosure failures. The DFSA is processing the complaint under case number 26005434. In plain English: the liquidator of Shape Robotics asked the Danish FSA to drop the market-abuse investigation against the former trustee — and the Danish FSA said no. The liquidator and the former trustee are, of course, the same man.

2. I asked a question I want shareholders to carry into Monday. The Carnegie pump-and-dump civil claim — the largest single litigation asset on Shape Robotics’ books — is worth potentially hundreds of millions of kroner. Every other strategic rationale I can construct for the liquidator’s refusal to open reconstruction breaks on the facts. The Carnegie claim is the only rationale that does not break. If the company is placed into bankruptcy and valued at zero, and then the Carnegie claim is realised later, the upside flows to the estate — not to the existing shareholders. I do not state this as a proven motive. I state it as the single hypothesis that does not contradict the liquidator’s otherwise-irrational opposition to a reconstruction plan the majority creditor actively wants.

3. I received an invitation to a Romanian national television programme this week to discuss the case publicly. I will go. Because the silence on this story inside the Danish press since the reconstruction petition was filed is, in itself, a fact worth noting. When paparazzi were on the courthouse steps in January, there were cameras. Since 20 April, when Elena Pasat filed the reconstruction petition with 62.1% of the creditor majority behind it — nothing. I do not know why. I know it is worth knowing why.

🎭 A Second Case Worth Watching — Aquaporin A/S

A shareholder on yesterday’s livestream pointed me to Aquaporin A/S, another Danish listed company where Teis Gullitz-Wormslev was appointed as trustee. Aquaporin delisted from Nasdaq Copenhagen before entering bankruptcy, so the market-abuse disclosure questions that apply to Shape Robotics do not apply to Aquaporin in the same way. The two cases are not procedurally parallel.

But they are parallel in one important respect: they are both cases where the same partner at the same firm took control of a Danish listed-company estate, and in both cases, the path from trusteeship to liquidation passed through opposition to reconstruction. Aquaporin was delisted. Shape Robotics is not. Shape Robotics is still trading under a suspension — a suspension the company itself is fighting to lift.

I do not know what pattern, if any, connects the two cases. I do know that the public record shows the same hand in both. And I know that the reconstruction hearing on 11 May 2026 is the moment at which this hand is either removed from Shape Robotics or confirmed.

🎯 What I Am Not Saying

I am not saying retsassessor Helle Degnbol is corrupt, dishonest, or acting in bad faith. I believe the opposite. I believe she is a judge of genuine integrity whose ordinary case-load does not include cases like ours, and that the four admissions in her 22 April letter are evidence of her honesty, not her malice — a judge who tried to write an accurate account of a hearing that had been structured before she entered the courtroom.

I am not saying Kromann Reumert has acted illegally. Under current Danish law, fast-kurator panel continuity is not prohibited. Simultaneous representation of a secured creditor and acceptance of a trustee appointment in the same estate is not categorically prohibited. These are policy questions for the Danish legislature, not for me, and not for this dispatch.

I am not saying Teis Gullitz-Wormslev has done anything criminal. The Copenhagen Police investigation under case reference 0100-83986-10362-26 is active and will reach whatever conclusion the facts support. The Danish FSA is processing the market-abuse complaint under case number 26005434. These are the institutions that will determine what is and is not lawful. I am publishing what has been publicly documented.

What I am saying is that the combination of (i) a court with minimal prior practice in main-market listed-company dissolution, (ii) a 37-year institutional memory vested in a single firm whose attorneys were physically present in the courtroom before any ruling was issued, (iii) a procedural template written for shell companies applied to a Nasdaq-listed issuer with 4,800 shareholders, and (iv) a hearing that produced four admitted procedural defects in half a page — produces an outcome that Østre Landsret cannot permit to stand under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Not because anyone in that room wanted to breach the Convention. Because the structural conditions of the hearing did not permit it to be complied with.

The appeal before the Eastern High Court is, in that sense, a teaching case. It asks the Landsret to articulate — for the first time in recent Danish jurisprudence — what a § 225 compulsory dissolution hearing requires, procedurally, when the debtor is a main-market Nasdaq Copenhagen listed company with active regulatory disclosure obligations, an ongoing High Court appeal, and a majority-creditor reconstruction petition on file. That standard has never been written in Denmark because, statistically, the case has never before reached a court that needed to write it.

We are writing it now, because we refused to die quietly.

🤲 For the 4,800

This is the section I write directly to the shareholders who own this company. And today I want to be especially plain with you, because Friday afternoon is not a day for abstraction.

The numbers I published today are for you. They are for the Østre Landsret judges who will read the appellate file. They are for the retsassessor at Sø- og Handelsretten who wrote the 22 April letter. They are for the Danish FSA, which has been the steady hand in this case since January. They are for the Danish press, whose silence since 20 April I do not understand. They are for every future founder who lists on Nasdaq Copenhagen and discovers, as I did, that the procedural infrastructure of Danish corporate insolvency was not built to handle a company like theirs.

But above all, these numbers are for you.

If you bought Shape Robotics in the 2020 IPO at 7 DKK, you did so because you believed in the business. If you averaged down through 2022 and 2023, you did so because you believed in the thesis. If you held through the first bankruptcy in January 2026 and watched Østre Landsret annul it on 5 March, you did so because you believed in the fight. And if you are still reading this on Day 50, you are still here for the same reason we are all still here: because a listed company with committed capital, an operating business, and 4,800 shareholders does not get dismantled in silence by a court that sees one of these cases every 12 to 15 years.

On Monday 11 May 2026 at 09:30, Sø- og Handelsretten will hear Elena Pasat’s reconstruction petition. The creditor majority is 62.1%. The plan is the 99.99% haircut with upside preserved through the Litigation Proceeds Unit structure — debt converts into litigation rights, not into diluted equity. If reconstruction opens, the existing shareholders keep what they bought. If the Eastern High Court grants suspensive effect on the 17 April dissolution order in the next week, the reconstruction path is protected through to that hearing.

Between now and 11 May, every document goes here. Every filing. Every receipt.

We are still standing. Still governed. Still moving forward.

📊 The scoreboard after 50 days

The scoreboard after 50 days: Bankruptcy annulled ✓ | DFSA reprimand on Lars Topholm ✓ | EGM passed, new board elected ✓ | Appeal filed in Case SK-524/2026-SHR ✓ | Judge’s letter contradicts itself ✓ | Four procedural defects admitted in writing ✓ | Criminal complaint active (0100-83986-10362-26) ✓ | Reconstruction plan filed with 62.1% creditor majority ✓ | DFSA confirms Finanstilsynet case file against former trustee remains open (26005434) ✓ | 25-year statistical record published — 17 cases, 10 banks, 4 at Sø- og Handelsretten, 2 real comparable cases ✓

Still standing. Still governed. Still moving forward.

🔜 What happens next

Saturday 25 April. Supplementary Brief No. 2 circulated to counsel for filing Monday morning at Østre Landsret. The 25-year statistical annex attaches.

This week. Response from Østre Landsret expected on suspensive effect (opsættende virkning) under § 395 of the Administration of Justice Act.

This week. Romanian national-television interview on the case, to be announced in a separate Note once the broadcast slot is confirmed.

Monday 11 May 2026, 09:30: Reconstruction hearing at Sø- og Handelsretten. Elena Pasat’s petition is argued. The creditor majority is 62.1%.

Wednesday 20 May 2026: Six pending bankruptcy petitions heard — unless 11 May renders them moot.

Every day between now and 11 May: This Substack. Every document. Every filing. Every receipt.

[Insert Share button]

25 years of Danish stock-exchange history. 17 main-market bankruptcies. 10 banks. 4 at the court handling Shape Robotics. 2 real comparable cases. Zero prior experience with a company like ours. Share this with anyone who still thinks this story is about one company. It is about every Danish listed company that ever enters this procedure in the future.

📚 The full investigation

Day 49: The Pre-Appointed — When the attorneys who would be appointed were already seated.

Day 48: The Email Viktor Sent Only to Me — DFSA confirms the liquidator withdrew the complaint against the trustee. Same man.

Day 47: The Reconstruction the Liquidator Refused — The majority creditor asked to rebuild. The liquidator said no.

Day 46: A Question of Procedure — A Romanian EU citizen examined under criminal sanction without a certified interpreter.

Day 39: The Genoptagelse — Nasdaq confirms the only obstacle.

Start Here — The Wild CEO Story — New to this? Begin with the data.

wildceo.live — The full investigation site.

🔭 For Sø- og Handelsretten, retsassessor Helle Degnbol, Kromann Reumert, and Teis Gullitz-Wormslev

If any sentence in this article is factually inaccurate, please write to me at mark@shaperobotics.com. I will publish a correction in the next edition with the same prominence as the original claim.

I have taken care to stay strictly within the four corners of the documents referenced and the public statistical record — Statstidende, Danmarks Statistik, Finans Danmark’s 2018 historical inventory of failed banks, the Konkurrence- og Forbrugerstyrelsen Advokatanalyse of 14 January 2021 on panel concentration, Kromann Reumert’s own January 2024 press release on the fast-kurator succession from Marianne Philip to Teis Gullitz-Wormslev, the published case rosters of the ten largest Danish insolvency firms, the 22 April 2026 letter from retsassessor Degnbol to Østre Landsret, the 17 April 2026 ruling in Case SK-524/2026-SHR, the 5 March 2026 ruling of Østre Landsret annulling the prior konkursdekret, and the 22 April 2026 correspondence from Viktor Hjortdal Kromphardt at Finanstilsynet under case number 26005434. Nothing in this article is speculation about any individual’s intentions. Everything is verifiable.

📎 Documents referenced in this post

📄 Retsassessor_Letter_22-04-2026.pdf — Letter from Helle Degnbol, retsassessor at Sø- og Handelsrettens Skifteret, to Østre Landsret. 22 April 2026, 23:53 CEST. Case SK-524/2026-SHR.

📊 Main_Market_Bankruptcies_2000-2025.csv — 25-year inventory compiled from Statstidende, Danmarks Statistik, Finans Danmark, and published trustee rosters. Published on the Zero Practice landing page at wildceo.live/zero-practice.

📊 Fast_Kurator_Panel_Continuity.csv — Sø- og Handelsretten panel firms and their continuous duration on the panel.

📄 KFST_Advokatanalyse_14-01-2021.pdf — Konkurrence- og Forbrugerstyrelsen analysis of the Danish legal profession, including fast-kurator panel concentration.

📄 DFSA_Case_Confirmation_26005434.pdf — 22 April 2026 email from Viktor Hjortdal Kromphardt, Head of Legal at Finanstilsynet, confirming the market-abuse investigation under Case 26005434 remains active.

📄 Supplerende_Processkrift_Nr_2_SK-524-2026-SHR.pdf — Supplementary Brief No. 2 with the statistical annex, to be filed at Østre Landsret on Monday 27 April 2026.

[Insert Comment button]

17 cases in 25 years. 10 banks. 4 at this court. 2 real comparable cases. And one that refused to die quietly. What do you see?

🔔 Subscribe

Thanks for reading Wild CEO — The Journey! This post is public so feel free to share it.

[Insert Share button]

I will publish — as filings and rulings come in — only what is in the official record. No commentary on merits pending decision. No speculation about intent. Just the documents and the procedural posture:

• Any ruling by Østre Landsret on suspensive effect in Case SK-524/2026-SHR.

• Østre Landsret’s ruling on the merits of the appeal, in due course.

• The 11 May hearing on reconstruction at Sø- og Handelsretten.

• The 20 May hearing on the six pending bankruptcy petitions.

• Any public response from Sø- og Handelsrettens Skifteret, Kromann Reumert, Teis Gullitz-Wormslev, or any party to these proceedings.

• Progress of the Copenhagen Police investigation under reference 0100-83986-10362-26.

• Progress of the Danish FSA market-abuse investigation under case 26005434.

• Updates to the 25-year statistical record as new data is verified.

Documentation over speculation. Procedure over noise.

This is Wild CEO.

[Insert Subscribe button]

🏷️ #GameOver #Day50 #ZeroPractice #ShapeRobotics #PhaseEducation #NasdaqCopenhagen #SøOgHandelsretten #ØstreLandsret #KromannReumert #TeisGullitzWormslev #Retsassessor #Tvangsopløsning #Selskabsloven §225 #Article6 #ECHR #Finanstilsynet #MAR #Insolvens #FasteKuratorer #DanishCorporateLaw #WildCEO

GAME OVER | Day 50 — Subscribe at substack.wildceo.live for real-time updates. Join the community chat.

Shape Robotics A/S | CVR DK38322656 | Nasdaq: SHAPE | ISIN: DK0061273125

Mark-Robert Abraham, Founder and CEO — Phase Education A/S

April 24, 2026. Day 50. Zero Practice.

Get more from Mark Abraham | WildCEO in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Previous episodes: Day 48: The Email Viktor Sent Only to Me | Day 47: The Reconstruction the Liquidator Refused | Day 46: A Question of Procedure

When I walked into the courtroom on 17 April, the attorneys who would be appointed to take over my company were already seated. Briefcases open. Ready. Six days later, the judge wrote a half-page letter to the Eastern High Court explaining the hearing. In four paragraphs, she indicted herself — and confirmed what I saw from the door.

49 days since the Eastern High Court of Denmark unanimously annulled the bankruptcy of Shape Robotics A/S.

Yesterday at 23:53 CEST, an email-attached PDF landed in my counsel’s inbox from Helle Degnbol, retsassessor at Sø- og Handelsrettens Skifteret — Probate Division. The sender is the same judge who ordered Shape Robotics into compulsory dissolution on 17 April. The recipient is the Eastern High Court. The subject is Case SK-524/2026-SHR — my appeal against her own decision.

It is one page. Half a page of actual substance. And it is, without exaggeration, the most useful piece of paper the probate court has produced in this entire case.

Because in that half page, retsassessor Degnbol:

• describes a Kromann Reumert team as “the appointed liquidator” in the moment they asked to question me — meaning they were already acting as the firm’s team from the moment the chair was filled;

• then, six sentences later, claims my testimony — given after that moment — was “consistent with” the basis for her decision;

• admits the oath warning does not appear in the court record;

• admits the court record is incomplete;

• admits the hearing was not audio-recorded;

• admits she held side-discussions in Danish with the Kromann Reumert attorneys while I was being questioned in English;

• and spells my name wrong. “Mark-Robert Abrahamsen.”

Read that carefully. Because everything that follows — the paradox, the four admissions, the misspelled name — is contained inside a document the judge voluntarily sent to the second-highest court in Denmark.

She did not have to write it. She chose to write it. And she contradicted herself in the writing.

🧭 TL;DR

Date received:           22 April 2026, 23:53 CEST
Authority:               Sø- og Handelsrettens Skifteret
                         (Maritime & Commercial Court, Probate Division)
Case no.:                SK-524/2026-SHR
Subject:                 Letter to Østre Landsret explaining the
                         17 April 2026 compulsory-dissolution decision

Sender:                  Helle Degnbol, retsassessor
Recipient:               Østre Landsret (Eastern High Court)
                         — filed on appeal, Case SK-524/2026-SHR

Original decision:       17 April 2026 — Shape Robotics A/S placed
                         under compulsory dissolution, Selskabsloven
                         § 225(1). Liquidator appointed: Teis Gullitz-
                         Wormslev (Kromann Reumert). Same firm as the
                         annulled bankruptcy trustee.

Pre-appointed presence:  Two Kromann Reumert attorneys — Kamilla Krebs
                         and Albert Mungo Madsen — already seated in
                         the courtroom when the appellant walked in.
                         Before any ruling. Before any appointment.

The paradox:             The letter describes Krebs and Madsen as
                         "the appointed liquidator" at the moment they
                         asked to question the appellant — AND claims
                         the appellant's testimony (given after) is
                         "consistent with" the basis for the decision.
                         Both cannot be true.

Four admissions:         ✕ Oath warning not in court record (§ 181(1))
                         ✕ Court record is only "part of" what was said
                         ✕ Hearing was not audio-recorded
                         ✕ Side-discussions in Danish while appellant
                           was questioned in English, under oath

Name error:              "Mark-Robert Abrahamsen" (not Abraham)

Next milestone:          Monday 11 May 2026, 09:30
                         Reconstruction hearing at Sø- og Handelsretten
                         (Elena Pasat's petition, 62.1% creditor majority)

⚖️ The pre-positioning — what I walked into

I flew from Bucharest to Copenhagen on 17 April 2026 to attend the compulsory-dissolution hearing at Sø- og Handelsrettens Skifteret. The hearing was called under Section 225(1) of the Danish Companies Act. The ground was that Shape Robotics A/S allegedly lacked a registered office and registered management. This was not true. We had already resolved both defects three days earlier. I went in person with the documentation.

When I walked into the courtroom, two attorneys from Kromann Reumert were already seated.

Attorney Kamilla Krebs. Attorney Albert Mungo Madsen. Both from the same firm that had acted as secured creditors’ counsel in the annulled bankruptcy. Both from the same firm whose partner — Teis Gullitz-Wormslev — was about to be appointed liquidator of my company.

They were not summoned. They had no client on record. They had no procedural standing. They had no petition filed. They had no interest that the statute recognises as legitimate at that moment in time.

They were just — there. Seated. Ready. Briefcases open.

💡 Callout — What § 225 actually is

🟢 § 225 Selskabsloven (compulsory dissolution) is an administrative-reparative procedure. Its purpose is to cure registration defects — no lawful address, no valid management, no statutory auditor — by giving the company a short runway to remedy them. If the company remedies the defect, the statute mandates genoptagelse (reinstatement) under § 232. The hearing is a check-up, not a funeral.

🔴 What § 225 is not: it is not a liquidation procedure. It is not a contested adversarial hearing. It is not a forum for creditor representation. It does not contemplate the pre-positioning of a named law firm’s attorneys as liquidators-in-waiting in the courtroom before the court has decided anything.

There is no procedural box in the Danish Companies Act that accommodates what I walked into.

📜 The only two explanations that exist

I have thought about this for six days. I have spoken to Danish lawyers. I have read the statute in both languages. There are only two explanations for why a Kromann Reumert team was already seated in a probate courtroom at the start of a hearing that had not yet happened:

Explanation A. They had prior notice from someone inside the court that Kromann Reumert’s Teis Gullitz-Wormslev would be appointed liquidator. In which case the appointment decision was made before the hearing, and the hearing was a formalisation of an administrative decision already taken.

Explanation B. They were there without any legal basis whatsoever, and the court permitted their presence — and their subsequent examination of me under criminal liability — without being required to do so.

I do not know which of these explanations is true. I do know that both are untenable under the rule of law.

The first is a violation of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights — the right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. Fairness under Article 6 presupposes that the outcome of a hearing depends on the arguments and evidence the party presents. When the outcome is fixed before the hearing, the right to be heard is a ceremony, not a right.[^1]

The second is a procedural irregularity severe enough, on its own, to warrant annulment.

A Kromann Reumert team does not physically occupy a probate courtroom, brief open, at the start of a hearing — unless someone had already decided the outcome.

🔍 The judge’s letter confirms it — by accident

Six days later, retsassessor Degnbol wrote a four-paragraph letter to the Eastern High Court explaining the hearing. In one sentence of that letter, she wrote:

“Da selskabet blev taget under likvidation, anmodede den udpegede likvidator v/advokat Kamilla Krebs og advokat Albert Mungo Madsen om at kunne stille nogle spørgsmål til kærende.”

“When the company was placed in liquidation, the appointed liquidator — through attorney Kamilla Krebs and attorney Albert Mungo Madsen — requested to put some questions to the appellant.”

Look at the framing. Not “the attorneys who were present requested…” Not “at that point, counsel was appointed and asked…” The framing is: the appointed liquidator, through Krebs and Madsen.

She described them as “the appointed liquidator” in the moment they asked to question me. Which means, in her own account, they were already acting as the firm’s team from the moment the chair was filled.

And six sentences later, in the same paragraph, she wrote that my testimony — given under oath, given after the liquidation decision — was “consistent with” the basis for the liquidation decision.

Either the decision was made before I spoke, in which case my testimony cannot have confirmed it. Or my testimony was part of the reasoning, in which case the decision cannot have been made before I spoke.

Both cannot be true.

This is not a paradox I invented. This is a paradox she documented.

📋 The four admissions in half a page

The same letter — half a page of actual substance — contains four direct admissions of procedural defect. These are the judge’s own words, not mine.

1. The oath warning is not in the court record.

“Kærende blev vejledt om sandhedspligt og strafansvar, hvilket i øvrigt ikke fremgår af retsbogen.”

“The appellant was warned about the duty to tell the truth and criminal liability, which, for that matter, does not appear in the court record.”

Section 181(1) of the Administration of Justice Act requires the warning to appear in the record. Without it, the criminal liability it activates has no foundation.

2. The record is incomplete.

“Det anførte i retsbogen er kun en del af det forklarede.”

“What is stated in the court record is only part of what was explained.”

She admits it.

3. The hearing was not audio-recorded.

“Retsmødet ikke blev lydoptaget.”

“The hearing was not audio-recorded.”

There is no objective record of what was said. None.

4. Side-discussions in Danish during the hearing.

“Enkelte gange spurgte jeg på dansk advokat Kamilla Krebs og advokat Albert Mungo Madsen, hvad de ønskede tilføjet retsbogen.”

“On several occasions I asked, in Danish, attorneys Kamilla Krebs and Albert Mungo Madsen what they wished to add to the court record.”

While I was being questioned in English, the judge held side-discussions in Danish with the two Kromann Reumert attorneys about what to add to the record. I could not follow these discussions.

Four admissions. In one half-page letter. I did not have to find them. She wrote them down herself.

Every single one of them is only intelligible if the Kromann Reumert team was already operating as the company’s liquidator-in-waiting before any liquidator had officially been appointed.

📌 Callout — The arithmetic of half a page

• 1 page in total. • 4 direct admissions of procedural defect. • 2 Kromann Reumert attorneys present without standing. • 0 audio recording. • 0 identity check. • 1 misspelling of the appellant’s name. • ~20 distinct errors, defects, or contradictions, depending on how you count. • Section 181(1) of the Administration of Justice Act — violated. • Article 6(1) ECHR — engaged. • Case SK-524/2026-SHR — pending before Østre Landsret.

🎭 And my name is not my name

At the bottom of the letter, in the paragraph describing the urgent petition I filed yesterday for the liquidator’s removal, the judge writes:

“Herudover har skifteretten i dag modtaget en hastebegæring fra Mark-Robert Abrahamsen om afsættelse og nybeskikkelse af likvidator på grund af inhabilitet.”

“Furthermore, the Probate Court has today received an urgent request from Mark-Robert Abrahamsen concerning removal and reappointment of the liquidator on grounds of disqualification.”

My name is Mark-Robert Abraham. Not Abrahamsen.

She never asked me for ID on 17 April. No passport. No identity card. No verification of any kind. A foreign CEO, resident abroad, placed under criminal liability for his testimony. No identity check. And the name in the formal letter to the Eastern High Court — a letter that will go into the appellate file — is not his name.

Read that again. A publicly-listed company. 4,800 shareholders across seventeen countries. EUR 16 million in committed capital. A company described at length in six separate filings to the same court over four months. And the judge who ordered its dissolution writes the wrong name for its founder.

This is what a court that is not paying attention looks like on paper.

🗓️ Why I flew from Romania — the sequence that matters

14 April · morning. Shape Robotics A/S holds an Extraordinary General Meeting. We change the registered office. We update the management. The resolutions are adopted.

14 April · afternoon. We file the changes with Erhvervsstyrelsen — the Danish Business Authority — the same afternoon.

15 April. Erhvervsstyrelsen sends a compulsory-dissolution request to the probate court on the ground that the company lacks a registered office and management. Twenty-four hours after our filing.

16 April · 00:43. I email the court stating that I will attend personally with documentation.

17 April. I fly from Bucharest to Copenhagen.

17 April · hearing. I walk into the courtroom. Two Kromann Reumert attorneys are already seated. No ruling has been made. No liquidator has been appointed. I did not know them. They were not on the case.

I went in person because a § 225 hearing is administrative. It is reparative. Its purpose is to cure a registration defect that has usually not yet been cured. I walked in with the documentation proving the defect had already been cured three days earlier.

This is not the hearing I attended. This is what I walked into.

What I walked into was a liquidation already decided, a liquidator already selected, and a team already positioned in the courtroom to take over the company — the same firm whose partner had been removed by the Eastern High Court six weeks earlier as trustee in the bankruptcy the High Court annulled.

🤝 I do not think the judge is corrupt

I want to be precise about this, because the shareholders reading this publication have earned precision.

I do not believe retsassessor Helle Degnbol is corrupt. I do not believe there was a bribe, a phone call, a brown envelope. I have said this on the community livestream, and I say it here in writing.

What I think is something more ordinary, and for that reason more dangerous.

I think the system treated Shape Robotics A/S the way it treats any small Danish limited company that falls into compulsory dissolution — as a formality, as an administrative cleanup, as a file to close before lunch. The judge followed the court’s standing practice of appointing from a short list of firms that routinely handle insolvency mandates at Sø- og Handelsretten. Kromann Reumert has held at least one fast-kurator seat at that court continuously since 1989. The relationship is structural. The pre-positioning is, in that reading, a matter of established practice.

But the statute does not contemplate established practice at the expense of fair procedure. And a publicly-listed EdTech company with 4,800 shareholders, EUR 16 million of committed capital, subsidiaries in Romania, Poland, and Finland, and three months of High Court litigation on its back, is not a shell company to be closed before lunch.

She treated us like a shell company. We are not a shell company.

🎯 What I am not saying

I am not saying retsassessor Helle Degnbol acted in bad faith. She did not. The four admissions in her letter are, in my reading, evidence of exactly the opposite — a judge who tried to write an honest chronological account of a hearing that had been structured so badly before she entered the courtroom that an honest account was, inevitably, a self-contradicting one.

I am not saying there was a secret instruction, an off-the-record brief, or anything other than the court’s standing operational practice.

What I am saying is that “standing operational practice” — combined with pre-positioned counsel, an unrecorded hearing, an incomplete record, side-discussions in Danish during English-language testimony, and a misspelled name on the formal correspondence to the appellate court — produces a procedural outcome that cannot survive Article 6 review.

The appeal is on that record. That record is half a page long. The judge wrote it herself.

🤲 For the 4,800

On Monday 11 May 2026 at 09:30, Sø- og Handelsretten will hear the petition for formal rekonstruktion of Shape Robotics A/S. The petition is Elena Pasat’s. The creditor majority behind it is 62.1%. The plan is the one I described in Day 48 — debt converted into litigation rights, not into diluted equity; the 4,800 shareholders keep what they bought.

If reconstruction opens on 11 May, the liquidator — currently subject to a criminal investigation by the Copenhagen Police (reference 0100-83986-10362-26) for violating the very Eastern High Court ruling where this appeal is now pending — will be removed. A neutral Danish reconstruction lawyer will take over. The litigation pool is mandated. The dilution is capped. The equity survives.

Between now and 11 May, there is a half-page letter on the Eastern High Court’s desk.

And there is an appeal that says: you wrote this. We read it. Now rule on it.

📊 The scoreboard after 49 days

Bankruptcy annulled ✓ | DFSA reprimand on Lars Topholm ✓ | EGM passed, new board elected ✓ | Appeal filed in Case SK-524/2026-SHR ✓ | Judge’s letter contradicts itself ✓ | Four procedural defects admitted in writing ✓ | Criminal complaint active (0100-83986-10362-26) ✓ | Reconstruction plan filed ✓ | DFSA withdrawal documented ✓ | Half-page letter with ~20 errors in the appellate record ✓

Still standing. Still governed. Still moving forward.

🔜 What happens next

Thursday 24 April: Supplementary Brief No. 2 circulated to counsel and cited into the appellate file. Full transparency.

This week: Response from Østre Landsret expected on suspensive effect (opsættende virkning) under § 395 of the Administration of Justice Act.

Week of 28 April: Creditor roadshow continues. LPU term sheet circulated to qualifying claim-holders.

Monday 11 May 2026, 09:30: Reconstruction hearing at Sø- og Handelsretten. Elena’s plan is argued.

Wednesday 20 May 2026: Six pending bankruptcy petitions heard — unless 11 May renders them moot.

Share

The judge wrote a letter to the High Court explaining her decision. In half a page, she admitted four procedural defects, contradicted her own chronology, and misspelled my name. Share this with anyone who still thinks this story is over.

📚 The full investigation

Day 48: The Email Viktor Sent Only to Me — The liquidator wrote to the DFSA to cancel the complaint against the trustee. They are the same man.

Day 47: The Reconstruction the Liquidator Refused — The majority creditor asked to rebuild. The liquidator said no.

Day 46: A Question of Procedure — A Romanian EU citizen, examined under criminal sanction, without a certified interpreter.

Day 41: The Six Claims — DKK 24 million against a DKK 330 million estate. Less than 5%.

Day 40: In Court — Three obituaries. Zero context.

Day 39: The Genoptagelse — Nasdaq confirms the only obstacle. We had already removed it.

Start Here — The Wild CEO Story — New to this? Begin with the data.

wildceo.live — The full investigation site.

🔭 For Helle Degnbol and Sø- og Handelsrettens Skifteret

If any sentence in this article is factually inaccurate, please write to me at mark@shaperobotics.com. I will publish a correction in the next edition with the same prominence as the original claim.

I have taken care to stay strictly within the four corners of the documents referenced — the retsassessor‘s letter of 22 April 2026 to Østre Landsret, the court’s ruling of 17 April 2026 in Case SK-524/2026-SHR, the appeal filed 21 April 2026 in the same case, Company Announcement No. 10-26 of 7 April 2026, the 5 March 2026 ruling of Østre Landsret, and the public filings already published in this series. Nothing here is speculation. Everything here can be verified from the linked and attached materials.

📎 Documents referenced in this post

📄 Retsassessor_Letter_22-04-2026.pdf — Letter from Helle Degnbol, retsassessor at Sø- og Handelsrettens Skifteret, to Østre Landsret, 22 April 2026, 23:53 CEST. Subject: Case SK-524/2026-SHR. One page.

📄 Supplerende_Processkrift_Nr_2_SK-524-2026-SHR.pdf — Supplementary Brief No. 2 in the same case, filed 23 April 2026. The point-by-point rebuttal.

📄 Court_Ruling_17-04-2026_SK-524-2026-SHR.pdf — Ruling of Sø- og Handelsrettens Skifteret of 17 April 2026 placing Shape Robotics A/S under compulsory dissolution and appointing Teis Gullitz-Wormslev as liquidator.

📄 Reconstruction_Petition_Elena_Pasat_R-14-26-G.pdf — Elena Pasat’s 20 April 2026 petition for rekonstruktionsbehandling (62.1% creditor majority). Filed in Sø- og Handelsretten. Hearing scheduled 11 May 2026, 09:30.

Leave a comment

You have the letter. You have the four admissions. You have the misspelled name. What do you see?

🔔 Subscribe

Thanks for reading Wild CEO — The Journey! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

Share Wild CEO — The Journey

I will publish — as filings and rulings come in — only what is in the official record. No commentary on merits pending decision. No speculation about intent. Just the documents and the procedural posture:

• Any ruling by Østre Landsret on suspensive effect in Case SK-524/2026-SHR.

• Østre Landsret’s ruling on the merits of the appeal, in due course.

• The 11 May hearing on reconstruction at Sø- og Handelsretten.

• The 20 May hearing on the six pending bankruptcy petitions.

• Any public response from Sø- og Handelsrettens Skifteret, Kromann Reumert, or any party to these proceedings.

• Progress of the Copenhagen Police investigation under reference 0100-83986-10362-26.

• Any further correspondence between Sø- og Handelsretten and Østre Landsret that enters the appellate file.

Documentation over speculation. Procedure over noise.

This is Wild CEO.

Thanks for reading Wild CEO — The Journey! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

🏷️ #GameOver #Day49 #ShapeRobotics #PhaseEducation #ThePreAppointed #SøOgHandelsretten #ØstreLandsret #KromannReumert #Retsassessor #Tvangsopløsning #Selskabsloven §225 #Article6 #ECHR #NasdaqCopenhagen #SHAPE #CVR #Reconstruction #WildCEO

[^1]: Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights provides, in relevant part: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” The Strasbourg jurisprudence has consistently held that the appearance of impartiality, and the procedural fairness of the hearing itself, are as important as the substantive outcome. Where the outcome of a hearing is materially predetermined — including by pre-positioning of counsel acting on behalf of a party yet to be constituted — the Article 6 guarantee is engaged regardless of the subjective good faith of the judge.

GAME OVER | Day 49 — Subscribe at substack.wildceo.live for real-time updates. Join the community chat.

Shape Robotics A/S | CVR DK38322656 | Nasdaq: SHAPE | ISIN: DK0061273125

Mark-Robert Abraham, Founder and CEO — Phase Education A/S

April 23, 2026. Day 49. The Pre-Appointed.

Get more from Mark Abraham | WildCEO in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app