┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  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

Previous episodes: Day 47: The Reconstruction the Liquidator Refused | Day 46: A Question of Procedure | Day 41: The Six Claims

48 days since the Danish High Court unanimously annulled the bankruptcy of Shape Robotics.

At 14:15 this afternoon, an email landed in my inbox from Viktor Stidsen Katic, Legal Officer at the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority — Capital Market Division. One sender. One recipient. Me.

The subject line read:

SV: J.nr. 25-026876 — Shape Robotics A/S — Preliminary Response and Request for Regulatory Action Regarding Trustee’s MAR Violations

Read that subject line carefully. Because everything that follows — the absurdity, the comedy, the farce — is contained inside it.

This is the complaint Shape Robotics A/S filed against Teis Gullitz-Wormslev in his capacity as curator/kurator for violating the Market Abuse Regulation during the 59-day bankruptcy administration. The complaint the company signed, paid for, and submitted to the Danish regulator.

And today the DFSA wrote to tell me that the complaint has been withdrawn — by the liquidator of Shape Robotics A/S.

The liquidator of Shape Robotics is Teis Gullitz-Wormslev.

The curator the complaint was filed against is Teis Gullitz-Wormslev.

Teis has cancelled the complaint against Teis.

🧭 TL;DR

Date received:           22 April 2026, 14:15 CEST
Authority:               Danish Financial Supervisory Authority
                         (Finanstilsynet)
Division:                Capital Market Division
Case no.:                J.nr. 25-026876
Subject:                 Shape Robotics A/S — Preliminary Response
                         and Request for Regulatory Action Regarding
                         Trustee's MAR Violations

Sender:                  Viktor Stidsen Katic, Legal Officer
                         (visk@ftnet.dk)
Recipient:               Mark Abraham (personally, as former CEO)
                         — sole recipient, not cc'd to liquidator

Triggering event:        Compulsory dissolution of Shape Robotics A/S
                         on 17 April 2026 (Sø- og Handelsretten)

Liquidator's instruction: Request for access to documents to be
                          WITHDRAWN on behalf of the Company
Liquidator:              Teis Gullitz-Wormslev (Kromann Reumert)
Original respondent:     Teis Gullitz-Wormslev (Kromann Reumert)
                         — as trustee (kurator) Jan–Mar 2026

Regulatory consequence:  Complaint closed as withdrawn by the Company
                         DFSA ex officio powers under MAR Art. 22–23
                         and Kapitalmarkedsloven § 211 — preserved
                         Underlying evidence — preserved in DFSA file

Next milestone:          Monday 11 May 2026, 09:30
                         Reconstruction hearing at Sø- og Handelsretten
                         (Elena Pasat's petition, 62.1% creditor majority)

📧 What the email actually says

I will translate the operative paragraphs from Viktor’s note so nobody has to take my word for it:

“Shape Robotics A/S was subjected to compulsory dissolution on 17 April 2026. The Danish Financial Supervisory Authority has been notified by the liquidator of Shape Robotics A/S that the request for access to documents is to be withdrawn. The Authority therefore concludes that the Company no longer has an interest in the processing of the request for access to documents being completed. The former management has resigned, and the liquidator represents the Company in all respects.”

That is the regulator telling me, in writing, that the company I used to run has instructed the regulator to stop investigating the man who now controls the company.

Because that man is now the company.

🎭 The cast, in one paragraph, for anyone joining late

On 6 January 2026, a Copenhagen court — acting on a petition that was never lawfully served — declared Shape Robotics A/S bankrupt. A trustee was appointed: Teis Gullitz-Wormslev of Kromann Reumert. For 59 days he controlled every bank account, every contract, every document, every share register. On 5 March 2026, the Eastern High Court unanimously annulled the bankruptcy. I returned as CEO. On 14 April, our shareholders held an EGM and elected a new board. On 15 April, Erhvervsstyrelsen filed for compulsory dissolution on the basis of a deficiency we had already remedied. On 17 April, the Maritime and Commercial Court appointed a liquidator under the Danish Companies Act. The court chose Teis Gullitz-Wormslev. The same man. The same law firm. The same hand on the company’s neck — only this time wearing a different title.

Kurator, then likvidator. The actor does not change. The costume does.

💡 Callout — Kurator vs. Likvidator

🔴 Kurator (trustee in bankruptcy, konkursloven) — a court-appointed officer who takes over a company declared bankrupt. Controls the estate. Acts in the interest of the creditors. Has wide discretion over assets, contracts, and continued operation. Subject to MAR and securities law while managing a listed company. Teis’s role: 6 January – 5 March 2026.

🟢 Likvidator (liquidator under compulsory dissolution, selskabsloven §§ 225–232) — a court-appointed officer who represents a company under forced dissolution. Represents the company in all respects. Signs on the company’s behalf. Files on the company’s behalf. Withdraws complaints on the company’s behalf. Teis’s role: 17 April 2026 – present.

These are different legal roles under different statutes. But — crucially for today’s story — when the same natural person holds first Role 1 and then Role 2 over the same company, Role 2 acquires the legal authority to extinguish any complaint that Role 1 was the subject of. The law permits this. The law did not anticipate this. The law is about to.

📑 The complaint that no longer exists

Case number J.nr. 25-026876 was Shape Robotics’ formal submission to the DFSA. It catalogued — with exhibits, dates, and trading records — a series of Market Abuse Regulation violations that occurred while Teis was trustee: selective disclosure, asymmetric information treatment, failure to disclose inside information to the market in accordance with Article 17 MAR, and related market-integrity concerns that sit squarely inside the DFSA Capital Market Division’s mandate.

It was the company’s own complaint. Filed on behalf of the company. Paid for by the estate. Addressed to the regulator that exists precisely to receive such complaints.

On 9 April at 10:56, I had replied to Viktor with what began, as the thread preserves it, with the single visible word:

“Appreciate…”

The substance of that reply was a preliminary response and a request for regulatory action. The case was live. The regulator was reading. A Capital Market Division legal officer was personally handling it.

Today, that process is closed. Not because the DFSA decided the complaint was without merit. Not because the facts changed. Not because any court ruled on anything.

Because the liquidator — who is the subject of the complaint — wrote to the regulator and said: withdraw it.

And the regulator, bound by its procedural logic, had no choice. Once the liquidator represents the company in all respects, the liquidator is the company. When the company tells the regulator to stop, the regulator stops.

The man under investigation told the regulator that the investigation into him should stop. And procedurally, legally, on paper — he was entitled to.

This is what happens when you give one person two hats and let them speak for the company while being the subject of the company’s own complaint.

🔍 Why Viktor sent this email only to me

Here is the part of today that I keep turning over.

The DFSA did not copy the liquidator on this email. They did not copy the board. They did not copy Kromann Reumert. They wrote to me personally — the former CEO, the natural person who signed the original complaint, the Romanian whose name is on the cover page of J.nr. 25-026876.

A regulator, as a matter of procedure, did not have to do that. The “Company” is now Teis. The correspondence could have ended at the liquidator’s desk, filed, closed, gone.

Viktor sent it to me.

I read that as a human being writing to a human being. A lawyer in a regulator’s office who has been reading this file for weeks — who has seen the MAR timeline, who has seen the trustee’s conduct, who has seen our evidence — telling me, because he had to tell someone, that the file is being closed not on its merits but because the man at the centre of it has now acquired the legal authority to close it on himself.

I am not going to attribute anything to Viktor that he did not write. But I will say this: when a regulator writes personally to the former CEO to inform him that a complaint has been withdrawn by the person the complaint is about, the regulator is telling you something the regulator cannot say out loud.

This is not a theory. This is a DFSA email, sent at 14:15 today, Wednesday 22 April 2026, from visk@ftnet.dk.

🎯 What I am not saying

I am not saying Viktor Stidsen Katic did anything improper. He did his job. He wrote a correctly-worded procedural notice on DFSA letterhead, citing the correct legal basis, to the correct natural person on the correct file. Every word of his email is appropriate for a legal officer in his position.

I am not alleging a secret communication, an off-the-record message, or anything other than a formal regulatory correspondence.

What I am saying is that the choice of recipient — the former CEO personally, as the signatory of the original complaint, and not the liquidator who just withdrew it — is a factual data point. It is on the face of the email. And it is the kind of choice that, in a functioning regulatory culture, is made deliberately.

⚖️ What this means for the MAR case

Let me be direct about the legal position, because the comment threads are already inventing scenarios.

The MAR violations did not evaporate because the complaint was withdrawn. The underlying conduct — whatever the DFSA would have found — still occurred between 6 January and 5 March 2026. Market Abuse Regulation enforcement does not require a complainant. The DFSA has ex officio powers under Section 211 of the Danish Capital Markets Act (Kapitalmarkedsloven) and under Articles 22–23 of Regulation (EU) No 596/2014. A regulator who has already read the evidence does not un-read it because the liquidator asked politely.[^1]

Second: the withdrawal itself is now evidence. A liquidator acting in the interest of the estate — the estate being, by law, the company and its creditors and its shareholders — does not typically cancel a regulatory complaint against himself in his previous role. A liquidator who does that creates a new fact pattern. That fact pattern is now documented in writing, timestamped, stored on a DFSA file, and archived in my inbox.

Third: the shareholders are not silent. Phase Education A/S — the successor entity resolved by the EGM of 14 April — has independent standing. So do the 4,800 individual shareholders whose shares were frozen, whose value was destroyed during the 59 days, and whose property rights are protected under Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR. The complaint is not the only channel. The complaint was the polite channel. There are others.

Teis in his capacity as liquidator has closed the polite one. That was his choice. He may come to regret the choices that remain.

📌 Callout — The arithmetic of today

• 14:15 CEST — time the DFSA email arrived. • 1 — number of recipients on that email. • 0 — number of days between Teis becoming liquidator (17 April) and Teis withdrawing the complaint against himself as trustee (on or before 22 April). • 59 — days Teis spent as trustee of Shape Robotics (6 January – 5 March 2026). • J.nr. 25-026876 — the regulatory file that is now marked withdrawn by the Company. • MAR Art. 22–23 + Kapitalmarkedsloven § 211 — the provisions under which the DFSA retains investigative authority regardless of any complainant’s position. • 62.1% — Elena Pasat’s share of admitted creditor claims, petitioning for reconstruction. • 11 May 2026, 09:30 — the hearing where the reconstruction petition is argued. That is the date that matters now.

🔄 From the absurd to the constructive

I could spend another thousand words on the comedy of Teis cancelling a complaint against Teis. I will not. The absurdity is on the record now. Anyone can read Viktor’s email. Anyone can see the sequence of costume changes.

What matters more — what matters to the 4,800 shareholders, to the Romanian operating team, to the committed capital providers — is what comes next. And what comes next is a reconstruction plan that does not depend on Teis, does not depend on Kromann Reumert, and does not depend on any Danish gatekeeper deciding to be fair.

That plan has a name. Elena.

💡 Elena’s plan, explained simply

Elena Pasat — my partner in life, in Story Kids, and in every venture I have ever built — is one of the majority creditors of Shape Robotics. Over the last week, she has put forward a reconstruction proposal that is structurally unusual in Danish practice and deliberately so. I want to explain it in plain language first, and then — for those who want the mechanics — I will walk through the technical annex below.

Here is the plan in one sentence:

Convert the debt into the right to sue the people who destroyed Shape. Issue the minimum number of new shares necessary. End with a company that has zero debt and shareholders who still own what they bought.

That is the whole thing.

A typical creditor-led reconstruction in Denmark does the opposite. Debt gets converted into equity. New shares flood the register. Existing shareholders — the 4,800 people who bought Shape Robotics over the years, who believed in educational robotics, who held through the bankruptcy — get diluted into irrelevance. They wake up owning 2% of what they used to own 100% of. The creditors take the company. The original shareholders take the loss.

Elena’s proposal refuses that template.

Instead of converting debt into shares, Elena’s plan converts debt into litigation rights — drepturi litigioase, in Romanian legal vocabulary. Each creditor who joins the plan exchanges their claim against Shape for an equivalent economic interest in the claims Shape has against the people who destroyed it: the former board, Carnegie Investment Bank, Teis Gullitz-Wormslev personally, Finans, and the others whose names are already in the record of this investigation.

The logic is almost embarrassingly simple:

• Shape’s creditors deserve to be paid. Elena agrees.

• The people who should pay them are the people who caused the damage. Not the 4,800 shareholders who bought robots for kids.

• The way to align those two facts is to route the creditor recoveries through the litigation portfolio, not through the equity.

The result, when the plan closes:

1. Shape Robotics (Phase Education A/S) has zero debt. All claims have been satisfied by assignment of litigation rights.

2. Existing shareholders keep the great majority of their equity. Minimal issuance — only what is strictly needed to fund the litigation machine and restart operations.

3. The creditors are made whole from the responsible parties, not from the shareholders who had nothing to do with the destruction.

4. The company is operationally free — no bank breathing on its neck, no legacy facility waiting to mature, no Damocles sword hanging over the Romanian subsidiary.

This is what a majority-creditor reconstruction done by someone who is also a shareholder, also a founder, also a spouse of the CEO looks like. Elena is not an outside fund looking to strip-mine the equity. She is inside the cap table. Her interests and the 4,800’s are the same interests.

That is why the plan is structured the way it is. That is why it looks different from anything a professional restructuring boutique in Copenhagen would draft.

And that is why the liquidator said no.

The liquidator refused a reconstruction that would extinguish DKK 330 million in contamination damages and leave existing shareholders with their equity intact — because that plan ends with litigation claims against the liquidator’s own firm.

🧮 Technical annex — the mechanics, for people who want them

For the shareholders who read court filings for breakfast, here is how the structure works in practice. I will keep it as compact as I can.

1. The instrument. Each consenting creditor signs a Creditor Accession Agreement with Phase Education A/S. On signing, the creditor’s monetary claim against the company (principal + contractual interest as of the effective date) is extinguished. In exchange, the creditor receives a Litigation Participation Unit (LPU) — a contractual right to a pro-rata share of the net recoveries from a defined litigation pool.

2. The pool. The litigation pool comprises, at minimum:

• D&O claims against the former board of Shape Robotics A/S (already mandated at 90.6% by the EGM of 14 April);

• Claims against Carnegie Investment Bank A/S arising from the documented market-manipulation conduct (mandated at 90.6%);

• Trustee-liability claims against Teis Gullitz-Wormslev personally and against Kromann Reumert jointly and severally, for conduct during the 59-day bankruptcy administration — including the subsidiary contamination, the DKK 199 million write-down, and now the liquidator-stage conduct;

• Defamation and related tort claims against Finans and associated parties, already quantified in the EUR 45 million action;

• Any ancillary recovery actions arising from the DFSA file, including the preserved evidence of the MAR violations notwithstanding the withdrawal of the complaint.

3. The waterfall. Recoveries from the pool flow in the following order: (a) litigation costs and counsel fees; (b) pari passu distribution to LPU holders up to 100% of extinguished face value of their original claim, with contractual interest; (c) any surplus reverts to the company and, through the company, to shareholders. The creditors are first in line. The shareholders are last. That is the deal.

4. The equity side. To fund (a) the litigation machine and (b) a minimum operational restart — Romanian payroll, Bechtle contract delivery, Nasdaq compliance — the plan authorises a capped issuance. The cap is calibrated against the committed EUR 16 million facility already secured (Alumni Capital EUR 1 million convertible + two strategic investors under NDA + the IRIS equity line). Under the most aggressive draw scenario, dilution to existing shareholders stays below 15% at plan close, compared to the 80–95% dilution that a conventional debt-for-equity creditor plan would impose.

5. The COMI anchor. Because Shape Robotics’ operational center of main interest is Romania — employees, contracts, Unicredit facility, executing entity — the plan is structured to be recognisable under EU Regulation 2015/848 as secondary to Romanian primary proceedings if and when the COMI argument is formally invoked. That is a safety rail, not the primary track. The primary track is Danish: a Section 13a–13e reconstruction filing in Sø- og Handelsretten, built on a creditor majority that Elena already represents.

6. Why the liquidator said no. A plan that converts debt into litigation rights against the liquidator’s own firm cannot, for obvious reasons, be approved by the liquidator. The liquidator has a personal and professional conflict. That conflict is now on the record. Sø- og Handelsretten will decide on 11 May 2026 — that date is already in Day 47 of this series — whether the liquidator’s refusal stands, or whether the creditor majority’s plan proceeds over his objection under the reconstruction provisions of Danish insolvency law.

That is the hearing that matters. Not the obituaries. Not the withdrawn MAR complaint. 11 May.

🗓️ The timeline after today

22 April (today): DFSA email received. Complaint J.nr. 25-026876 closed as withdrawn by liquidator. Evidence preserved. 23 April: Nasdaq counter-deadline on the 14-page investigation letter. Day 5 of 5. 11 May: Sø- og Handelsretten hears the reconstruction plan. Elena’s proposal is on the court’s desk. 20 May: All six bankruptcy petitions heard — the six claims catalogued in Day 41. Ongoing: COMI assessment for potential Romanian primary proceedings. Documentation continues.

🤝 For the 4,800

I want to be very plain with you today.

What happened this afternoon — the liquidator writing to the regulator to cancel the company’s own complaint against himself in his previous role — is the kind of thing that, in a functioning market, would trigger headlines, resignations, and a second investigation. In Denmark, it will trigger a silence. I expect nothing from Børsen. I expect nothing from Finans. I expect the comment threads to be what they always are.

But you are not the comment threads. You are the 4,800 people who own this company. You saw the EGM. You saw the vote. You saw the scoreboard after 44 days. You see the scoreboard after 48.

Elena’s plan is the path that keeps your shares alive. It is the only plan on the table that refuses to sacrifice you to make the creditors whole. It is the plan that says the people who destroyed the company should pay for the company — not the people who bought the company.

On 11 May, the court will decide whether that plan proceeds.

Between now and then, every document, every email, every filing that I can publish will be published on this Substack. Every receipt. Every footnote. Every absurd costume change. You will see it all.

📊 The scoreboard after 48 days

Board elected ✓ | EUR 16M committed ✓ | Criminal complaint filed ✓ | DFSA reprimand issued ✓ | 11 Company Announcements ✓ | 47 pages to Nasdaq ✓ | Genoptagelse filed ✓ | Six petitions mapped ✓ | Reconstruction plan filed ✓ | DFSA withdrawal documented ✓

Still standing. Still governed. Still moving forward.

🔜 What happens next

Thursday 23 April: Nasdaq counter-deadline lands. Response ready. This week: Public filing of the Viktor correspondence with contextual exhibits. Full transparency. Week of 27 April: Creditor roadshow continues. LPU term sheet circulated to qualifying claim-holders. 11 May: Reconstruction hearing at Sø- og Handelsretten. Elena’s plan is argued. 20 May: Six bankruptcy petitions heard. We will be there.

Share

The liquidator told the regulator to stop investigating the trustee. The liquidator and the trustee are the same man. The regulator wrote to tell me. Share this with anyone who still thinks this story is over.

📚 The full investigation

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 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 of 22 April 2026 attached below, the court’s ruling of 17 April 2026 appointing the liquidator, 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

📄 DFSA_Correspondence_22-04-2026.pdf — DFSA email of 22 April 2026, case J.nr. 25-026876. The retrieved Outlook thread showing the withdrawal notice from Viktor Stidsen Katic to Mark Abraham, with the 9 April reply below the fold.

📄 Company_Announcement_12-26.pdf — Cision filing to accompany this post, published simultaneously on Nasdaq MarketWire and the DFSA’s OAM system.

📄 Reconstruction_Petition_Elena_Pasat_R-14-26-G.pdf — Elena Pasat’s 20 April 2026 petition for rekonstruktionsbehandling (62.1% creditor majority), together with the liquidator’s e-mail refusal of the same date. Filed in Sø- og Handelsretten. Hearing scheduled 11 May 2026, 09:30.

Leave a comment

You have the email. You have the plan. You have the dates. What do you see?

🔔 Subscribe

Thanks for reading Wild CEO — The Journey! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

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 DFSA follow-up on the preserved MAR file (ex officio or otherwise).

• The liquidator’s substantive position on the reconstruction petition.

• Østre Landsret’s ruling on suspensive effect (pending from the 20 April appeal).

• The 11 May hearing on reconstruction at Sø- og Handelsretten.

• The 20 May hearing on the six pending bankruptcy petitions.

• Any public response from Kromann Reumert or any party to these proceedings.

• Progress of the Romanian criminal investigation.

Documentation over speculation. Procedure over noise.

This is Wild CEO.

🏷️ #GameOver #Day48 #ShapeRobotics #MAR #DFSA #Finanstilsynet #KromannReumert #Liquidator #Trustee #Reconstruction #Directive2019_1023 #EUlaw #WildCEO

[^1]: The withdrawal of a private complaint does not terminate the DFSA’s own regulatory powers. See Kapitalmarkedsloven § 211 and MAR Articles 22–23, which vest supervisory and enforcement authority directly in the competent authority (the DFSA) irrespective of whether the complainant persists. A timestamped, evidenced file already in the regulator’s possession remains a file already in the regulator’s possession.

GAME OVER | Day 48 — 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 22, 2026. Day 48. The Email Viktor Sent Only to Me.

Mark Abraham · 21 April 2026 · ~8 minute read · Court record + English translation attached

💡 Reader’s guide: This article explains what happened today at Sø- og Handelsretten in case R 14/26-G. It does not claim that any refusal was unlawful. It simply documents, with the court record attached, what was asked, what was answered, and what the court scheduled next. The question that follows is a rhetorical one, and it belongs to anyone reading. Not to me.

Today is Day 47. Yesterday I filed the appeal (kæreskrift) against the 17 April liquidation ruling. This morning, at noon, something else happened at Sø- og Handelsretten. Something that, on its face, should be good news for everyone involved — the creditors, the shareholders, the employees, the company itself.

Instead, it became a conflict.

Let me walk you through it.

🧭 TL;DR

Date of proceedings:     21 April 2026, 12:00
Court:                   Sø- og Handelsretten (skifteretten)
Case no.:                R 14/26-G
Subject:                 Shape Robotics A/S — under likvidation
Presiding:               Retsassessor Helle Degnbol

Petitioner:              Elena Pasat (majority creditor, 62.1% of admitted claims)
Represented by:          Attorney Philip A. Borreschmidt
Petition filed:          20 April 2026
Petition content:        Begæring om rekonstruktionsbehandling
                         (petition for reconstruction proceedings)

Liquidator's response:   E-mail of 20 April 2026 from Teis Gullitz-Wormslev
                         — "I cannot consent to the opening of reconstruction"

Court's decision today:  Hearing scheduled for
                         Monday, 11 May 2026, at 09:30

The court also made a procedural note that did not exist on 17 April, and I will return to it at the end of this article.

📜 Two procedures, one company, opposite directions

Before anyone can understand what happened today, two Danish legal concepts must be kept clearly apart:

Callout — Reconstruction vs. Liquidation

🟢 Rekonstruktion (reconstruction, konkursloven §§ 11–15b) — the company continues to operate. A specialist reconstructor takes control, negotiates with creditors, preserves the assets, restructures the debt, and restores the business to a viable state. Shares can be relisted. Employees keep their jobs. Contracts continue. Creditors are paid from ongoing operations over time.

🔴 Likvidation / konkurs (liquidation / bankruptcy) — the company ceases to exist. The liquidator sells the assets, terminates the contracts, dismisses the employees, and distributes what is left among the creditors in statutory order. Value is destroyed; creditors recover a fraction of what the company’s ongoing operations would have paid.

These are not aesthetic variations of each other. They are opposite outcomes. One preserves value. The other destroys it.

On 14 April 2026, the shareholders of Shape Robotics A/S — at a properly held EGM, under Danish law, with legal representation — voted in favor of reconstruction. That is a mandate with legal weight.

On 20 April 2026, the dominant creditor — holding 62.1% of all admitted claims — filed the formal petition to convert the mandate into a court procedure. The petition cited the relevant sections of the konkurslov (§§ 238, 238(4), and 238a), proposed a named reconstructor, and attached the eight annexes the law requires.

And on the same 20 April 2026, one e-mail arrived at the court from one person. The court-appointed liquidator. “I cannot consent.”

📄 The court record, in one page

The court record of today is attached to this post in both the Danish original and an English translation.

Here is what it says, in essentials:

The court:

1. Acknowledged the reconstruction petition from Elena Pasat with all eight annexes.

2. Acknowledged the e-mail refusal from the liquidator.

3. Scheduled a hearing for Monday 11 May 2026 at 09:30 — under konkursloven § 11, stk. 4, 2. pkt.

4. Ordered Elena Pasat to have the annexes translated into Danish (we had already begun this yesterday).

5. Directed that a transcript of the court record be sent to the parties — including, for the first time in this matter, “Mark-Robert Abraham via Bo K. Larsen” — and to the creditors in the six pending bankruptcy cases.

And then the court added a note that nobody asked for, but that changes everything on one level: the hearing will be conducted in Danish, and if an interpreter is required, the parties must bring a certified interpreter.

I will come back to that sentence at the end of this article. It is the most important eight words of the day.

🔍 The arithmetic of the refusal

This is where I try to stay on the ground, because I respect the court and I will not speculate on what is in anyone’s mind. But there is simple arithmetic that anyone can read.

Callout — The numbers on the table

• 62.1% of admitted claims — the proportion held by Elena Pasat, who asked for reconstruction.
• 100% of shareholder votes at the 14 April EGM — the proportion who mandated reconstruction.
• 4,800 — the approximate number of those shareholders.
• DKK 50,000 — the statutory fee a court-appointed liquidator receives. Not the reconstruction fees, not the billable hours, not the future mandates. Fifty thousand crowns total, under the court’s appointment.
• DKK 3,722,813 — the sum held in Kromann Reumert’s own client account, described by Shape Robotics A/S in Company Announcement No. 10-26 (7 April 2026) as “uautoriseret” — “unauthorised”.

The court-appointed liquidator is, in law, the caretaker of the company’s assets. Not an adversary of the majority creditor. Not an obstacle to the shareholders’ mandate. A caretaker.

A caretaker may have legitimate reasons to hesitate when asked to step aside for a specialist reconstructor. Those reasons, whatever they are, will be heard on 11 May. I will not anticipate them. I will not guess at them. The court will hear them and decide.

What I can say, as CEO, is that the procedure the majority creditor asked for is the procedure that, under Danish law, exists precisely to prevent the outcome of liquidation when a going-concern value is available. That is what rekonstruktion is for. The konkurslov was amended in 2022 specifically to make reconstruction more accessible, after Directive 2019/1023 required EU member states to provide preventive frameworks against the unnecessary destruction of viable businesses.

Shape Robotics A/S is such a business. The same €500M+ in assets enumerated in yesterday’s appeal exists today. The Bechtle German contract — approximately €40 million, regardless of what the 17 April court record says — is still alive. The Romanian subsidiary is still operating. The Lenovo partnership is still in place. The PNRR project is still won at the Bucharest Court of Appeal.

The question the court will answer on 11 May is whether a going-concern reconstruction is feasible under Danish law in these circumstances.

The question for the reader is different. It is rhetorical, and it belongs to you, not to me.

⚖️ Why the refusal is — structurally — surprising

I will state four facts, each documented in a public filing, and I will let you connect them as you see fit.

Fact 1. The 62.1% majority creditor asked for reconstruction. In any rational creditor ranking, the preference of the largest single creditor carries disproportionate weight.

Fact 2. The shareholders unanimously mandated reconstruction at a lawful EGM on 14 April 2026.

Fact 3. The company holds more than €500M in documented assets (intellectual property, contracts, damages claim vs. Carnegie, secured financing, operating subsidiaries). Reconstruction preserves these assets. Liquidation does not.

Fact 4. The court-appointed liquidator’s prior trustee mandate over the same company was unanimously annulled by Østre Landsret on 5 March 2026. His firm holds DKK 3.72M of the company’s money in its own name, described by the company as “unauthorised”. He is the subject of a pending criminal complaint filed on 26 March 2026 with the Bucharest Prosecutor’s Office, and of a complaint to the Copenhagen Police (ref. 0100-83986-10362-26).

Given those four facts, a consent to reconstruction would have been — from a purely procedural standpoint — the path of least resistance. The majority creditor would get what she asked for. The shareholders would get what they mandated. The assets would be preserved. The liquidator’s statutory fee would remain the same. The reconstructor, an independent specialist from a different firm (Mazanti-Andersen, recommended by us for this case), would take over the complex operational work.

On balance, there is no obvious procedural reason to refuse.

🎯 What I am not saying

I am not saying the refusal is unlawful. It is not. A liquidator has the right to withhold consent under Danish law, and the court will hear his reasons on 11 May.

I am not imputing motives. I cannot read minds, and I will not pretend to.

What I am saying is that, given the four documented facts above, the refusal is structurally surprising. It is the kind of choice that invites a rhetorical question. The question does not belong to me. It belongs to anyone who reads those four facts in sequence.

The question is: why?

📌 The one note in today’s court record that changes everything

I promised I would return to it.

Compare two court records, forty-eight hours apart, from the same judge, about the same company.

Retsbog of 17 April 2026 (the tvangsopløsning hearing): I was examined under strafansvar — criminal sanction — in English, without a certified Romanian interpreter. No consular notification. No mention, anywhere in the record, of the language or interpreter question.

Retsbog of 21 April 2026 (the rekonstruktion scheduling): “Det bemærkes, at retsmødet vil foregå på dansk. Er der behov for tolk, må parterne selv medbringe en autoriseret tolk.”

(Translation: “The court notes that the hearing will be conducted in Danish. If an interpreter is required, the parties must themselves bring a certified interpreter.”)

Forty-eight hours and one appeal later, the same court — in an act of its own initiative, on a point nobody raised in today’s filings — issued an explicit procedural instruction about interpretation.

I will not describe what that means. I will let you draw your own conclusions. But I will say this: for a Romanian citizen who, four days ago, gave sworn testimony in a language not his own, translated by the opposing party’s counsel, and for whom that very issue was filed as Ground 3.1 of an appeal at 09:00 on 20 April, the quiet appearance of this note in a procedural order on 21 April is not nothing.

It is not an admission. It is not a concession. It is, perhaps, simply — the system catching up to itself.

🗓️ What happens between now and 11 May

Date Event 21 Apr 2026 ✅ Court scheduled reconstruction hearing. By 27 Apr 2026 (approx.) Elena Pasat submits Danish translations of annexes 2, 3 (central parts), 4, 6–7 (central parts), and 8. Between now and 11 May Liquidator may file a substantive position on the reconstruction petition. Between now and 11 May Østre Landsret may rule on the opsættende virkning (suspensive effect) request from yesterday’s appeal. Mon 11 May 2026, 09:30 Hearing on the reconstruction petition. “Retsmødet vil foregå på dansk. Er der behov for tolk, må parterne selv medbringe en autoriseret tolk.” We will bring one. Wed 20 May 2026, 09:30 Six pending bankruptcy petitions (K 2932/25-E, K 2992/25-E, K 3337/25-B, K 18/26-D, K 653/26-K, K 652/26-E).

The convergence of these dates is not coincidence. It is procedure. Three tracks — the appeal, the reconstruction, and the bankruptcy petitions — will intersect within the next 30 days. Whichever one concludes first shapes the others.

🏗️ Why reconstruction matters beyond this case

Callout — For readers interested in EU insolvency law

Directive 2019/1023 on preventive restructuring frameworks was adopted by the European Parliament in June 2019 and transposed into Danish law by Lov nr. 896 af 21/06/2022. The Directive’s purpose is to give viable businesses in financial distress a second chance before liquidation, so that jobs, know-how, and economic value are preserved rather than destroyed.

The Directive applies across all EU member states. The principles it codifies — majority-creditor preference, debtor-in-possession arrangements, specialist reconstructor oversight — are now part of the shared procedural fabric of European corporate law.

A Danish court considering reconstruction in 2026 is not applying a domestic oddity. It is applying a pan-European framework designed to prevent exactly the outcome that liquidation without reconstruction produces: the loss of viable businesses in the middle of procedural battles.

This is why the majority creditor filed. This is why the shareholders mandated it. This is why, on 11 May, Sø- og Handelsretten will consider — under a framework the EU itself designed — whether Shape Robotics A/S should be rebuilt rather than taken apart.

I respectfully submit that the court will hear the arguments, apply the law, and reach its own conclusion. My job, and the job of this publication, is simply to keep the record public while it does so.

🔭 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 filed documents — the court record of 21 April 2026, the e-mail refusal acknowledged in it, the Company Announcement No. 10-26 of 7 April 2026, the 5 March 2026 ruling of Østre Landsret, and the criminal complaints on public record. Nothing here is speculation. Everything here can be verified from the attachments below.

The Denmark I still believe in

Yesterday I wrote about the five-judge panel of Østre Landsret that, on 5 March 2026, did its job with rigor and unanimity. Today I write about a different judge — Retsassessor Helle Degnbol — who, in the space of four days, first presided over a hearing where a Romanian was examined under criminal sanction without a certified interpreter, and then, on her own initiative, in a subsequent procedural order, wrote that interpretation must be provided at the next hearing.

That is not the end of the matter. The 17 April retsbog still exists. The examination happened. The appeal is filed. But the evolution between 17 April and 21 April is, to use Andersen’s words, “et lille glimt af det, der kommer” — a small glimpse of what is coming.

The Denmark of Kierkegaard self-corrects. The Denmark of Andersen notices. The Denmark of the maritime merchants adapts. I still believe in that Denmark, and I am watching this week’s record carefully because it suggests that Denmark may, quietly, be doing its work.

On 11 May, we will know more.

Mark Abraham
Founder & CEO, Shape Robotics A/S
Administrator, Shape Robotics România S.R.L.
Romanian citizen · Copenhagen · Bucharest
mark@shaperobotics.com · +40 749 288 688

“A system that survives on silence dies the moment someone refuses to be canceled — but the refusal is worth more when it is filed through proper channels, documented in the official record, and offered in good faith to the court that decides.”

🏷️ #GameOver #Day47 #ShapeRobotics #Rekonstruktion #Reconstruction #Directive2019_1023 #EUlaw #WildCEO

📎 Documents attached to this post

Each document is either filed in a Danish court today or relates directly to what is in the filed record.

📄 Court_Minute_21-04-2026_DA.pdf — 2 pages · Danish original

Court Minute 21 04 2026 En

60.9KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The retsbog of Sø- og Handelsretten of 21 April 2026, case R 14/26-G. Signed by Retsassessor Helle Degnbol. Distributed by the court to the parties.

📄 Court_Minute_21-04-2026_EN.pdf — 1 page · English translation

Court Minute 21 04 2026 En

60.9KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Unofficial English translation prepared for readers, one page, elegant layout. The Danish original governs in case of any discrepancy.

📄 Kaereskrift_COMPLET_SK-524-2026-SHR.pdf — 80 pages · Bilingual Danish/English

Yesterday’s complete appeal to Østre Landsret, with all eight exhibits. The procedural questions raised in this appeal remain pending before the High Court in parallel with the reconstruction proceedings.

🔔 Subscribe

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:

• The liquidator’s substantive position on the reconstruction petition (if filed).

• Østre Landsret’s ruling on suspensive effect (pending from yesterday).

• The 11 May ruling on reconstruction.

• The 20 May hearing on the six pending bankruptcy petitions.

• Any public response from Kromann Reumert or any party to these proceedings.

• Progress of the Romanian criminal investigation.

Documentation over speculation. Procedure over noise.

This is Wild CEO.

Get more from Mark Abraham in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

📖 Reader’s guide — This article is an educational explainer about EU procedural rights in cross-border proceedings. It describes what I have formally asked the Eastern High Court to examine. It does not claim that any ruling was unlawful, nor allege bad faith against any individual. Every claim is sourced to a publicly filed document attached at the bottom.

“I grew up in a house with 4,000 books, educated by a mother who taught Latin. I’ve read all the Danish classics.” — Me, four months ago, in Make Denmark Great Again.

Today is Day 46. Forty-six days since Østre Landsret — the Danish Eastern High Court — unanimously annulled the first bankruptcy of Shape Robotics A/S on 5 March 2026. On 17 April 2026, Sø- og Handelsretten — the Maritime and Commercial Court of Copenhagen — issued a new ruling placing the company into forced liquidation (tvangsopløsning) and appointing a liquidator. I filed an appeal (kæreskrift) against that ruling today.

This article is a procedural explainer. It is not a commentary on the merits of the liquidation, which are now before Østre Landsret. I respect the judicial process. I believe in the Danish legal system. What I have done today — what every party in my position is entitled to do under Danish law — is use the appeal mechanism the law provides for cases where procedural questions arise.

Let me walk you through those questions.

Date of hearing     : 17 April 2026
Court               : Sø- og Handelsretten (first instance)
Appellant           : Mark Abraham, Romanian citizen
Proceedings language: Danish
Testimony language  : English
Native language     : Romanian
Certified interpreter: NOT PROVIDED
De facto translators: Attorneys of the newly-appointed liquidator
Consular notification: NOT MADE
Appeal filed        : 20 April 2026, to Østre Landsret
Attachments         : 8 exhibits, 80 pages total

Four procedural questions before Østre Landsret:
  1. Interpretation standard (retsplejeloven §149(1) + Directive 2010/64/EU)
  2. Impartiality of the translator (analogous to retsplejeloven §60–61)
  3. Concrete discrepancies between testimony and court record (audio verification under §71(2))
  4. Consular notification (Article 36, Vienna Convention on Consular Relations)

⚖️ The legal framework, in one equation

The core principle that governs a hearing like the one on 17 April 2026 can be expressed as a simple identity:

If any of the three factors fails, the composition fails. What is preserved in the retsbog (the official court record) is no longer the party’s sworn testimony. It becomes an interpretation of the party’s statements, made by someone else, whose accuracy depends on factors the party cannot control.

This is not a philosophical observation. This is the operational principle behind §149(1) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act, Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation, Articles 47 and 48 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

The appeal asks Østre Landsret to examine whether, on 17 April 2026, each of the three factors held.

🗓️ Timeline

6 Jan 2026 — Bankruptcy opened against Shape Robotics A/S. Teis Gullitz-Wormslev appointed kurator.

8 Jan 2026 — Trustee instructs Romanian subsidiary to redirect all payments to a Kromann Reumert client account at Danske Bank.

21 Jan 2026 — Romanian subsidiary’s Chief Legal Advisor emails trustee about critical governance vacuum.

5 Mar 2026 — Østre Landsret unanimously annuls the bankruptcy (case K 3337/25-F).

8 Mar 2026 — Chairman & CEO sign Formal Acknowledgment of DKK 217M creditor claim.

26 Mar 2026 — Shape Robotics România S.R.L. files criminal complaint with Bucharest Prosecutor (gestiune frauduloasă).

7 Apr 2026 — Shape Robotics A/S public announcement: Kromann Reumert deposit is uautoriseret (unauthorised).

14 Apr 2026 — EGM: new board elected (Nein, Okkola, Ambrozie). New registered address.

15 Apr 2026 — Erhvervsstyrelsen files for compulsory dissolution.

17 Apr 2026 — Sø- og Handelsretten orders liquidation. Re-appoints Teis as liquidator. Cross-examines me under strafansvar.

20 Apr 2026 — Appeal filed with Østre Landsret. Romanian Embassy notified.

📊 The two concrete discrepancies, visualized

Part of the appeal asks Østre Landsret to compare what the court record reports against what I believe I actually said at the hearing. Two items stand out.

The magnitude of the discrepancy — a factor of approximately 21 — is too large to be accommodated by conventional rounding, currency conversion error, or minor imprecision. A certified, verbatim interpreter working between Romanian, Danish, and English does not produce a 21× discrepancy in a reported asset value.

The second item is conceptual rather than numerical: the court record attributes to me a declaration that the company is “insolvent because its shares cannot be traded.” This is a legal characterization, not a factual description. Trading suspension and insolvency are distinct concepts in both Danish and Romanian corporate law. It is unlikely, though not impossible, that a non-lawyer CEO speaking about his own company would volunteer such a characterization — particularly one who, in the same breath, enumerated intellectual property worth more than €15 million, a damages claim of DKK 250 million, and secured financing of €16 million.

The appeal respectfully asks Østre Landsret to use the tools available to it — audio verification under retsplejeloven §71(2), and witness examination of Bo Kretzschmer Larsen and Alexandru-Octavian Ambrozie, both present in the room — to establish what was actually said.

Question 1 — The interpretation standard

📜 The legal rule — Under retsplejeloven §149(1), the court shall ensure qualified interpretation when a party does not master the language of the court. This is a statutory duty of the court, not an optional accommodation. It is reinforced by Directive 2010/64/EU and Article 47 of the EU Charter.

I am a Romanian citizen. My native language is Romanian. Danish is not. This is recorded in the identification section of the retsbog itself.

On 17 April 2026, a certified Romanian–Danish interpreter was not assigned. Instead, shareholder Bo Kretzschmer Larsen — who is a fellow shareholder of Shape Robotics A/S, not a certified interpreter — was asked to “interpret to the extent necessary” (tolkede i fornødent omfang).

I consented to that limited arrangement for the general discussion. I did not consent to — and, in my respectful submission, could not have validly consented to — word-for-word translation of formal testimony under strafansvar (criminal sanction) by a person who was neither certified, independent, nor specifically briefed on the legal duties of a court interpreter.

The question for Østre Landsret is not whether I consented. The question is whether the arrangement satisfied the statutory standard.

Question 2 — The identity of the translator

📜 The legal rule — Under general principles of Danish procedure, applicable by analogy from retsplejeloven §60–61 on the impartiality of judges and court officials, a court interpreter should be independent of the parties. This is standard across EU member states and codified in Directive 2010/64/EU Article 2(8).

The actual word-for-word translation of my testimony was not performed by Bo Kretzschmer Larsen. It was performed by:

• Attorney Albert Mungo Madsen (Kromann Reumert)

• Attorney Kamilla Krebs (Kromann Reumert)

Both were present in the courtroom as procedural representatives of Teis Gullitz-Wormslev, who moments earlier in the same hearing had been formally appointed liquidator of Shape Robotics A/S.

An additional structural fact is that Mr. Madsen is named personally in a criminal complaint filed on 26 March 2026 (22 days before the hearing) by Shape Robotics România S.R.L. with the Prosecutor’s Office of the Bucharest Tribunal, alleging complicity in gestiune frauduloasă under Article 242 of the Romanian Criminal Code. The complaint is attached to this post.

What I am not saying: I am not saying these attorneys acted in bad faith during the translation. I have no way of knowing what was in their minds, and I will not speculate.

What I am saying: the structural situation — where opposing counsel performs real-time translation of opposing counsel’s counterparty’s testimony under criminal sanction — is inconsistent with ordinary impartiality standards. That is a legal question for Østre Landsret.

Question 3 — Specific discrepancies

The two items already discussed above — the German contract (record: DKK 14M; statement: €40M) and the insolvency characterization — are, in my respectful submission, unlikely to be the only ones. A complete comparison of the audio record, if one exists, against the retsbog will establish the full scope.

The appeal respectfully requests:

1) Verification of audio recording under retsplejeloven §71(2)

2) Summoning Bo Kretzschmer Larsen as witness

3) Summoning Alexandru-Octavian Ambrozie as witness

These are instruments entirely within Østre Landsret’s ordinary authority. I am not asking the court to believe my version against theirs. I am asking the court to use the tools Danish law provides to establish, on the evidence, what was actually said.

Question 4 — Consular notification

📜 The legal rule — Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963) requires the receiving State to inform a foreign national, without delay, of the right to contact their consular representation, and to notify the consulate of the national’s participation in serious legal proceedings.

To my knowledge, the Romanian Embassy in Copenhagen was not notified. I was not informed of my right to contact the Embassy before or during the hearing.

Today, simultaneously with filing the appeal, I have notified the Romanian Embassy myself. The complete dossier provided to the Embassy is attached to this post, in Romanian.

🌍 The cultural dimension — and why it matters legally

In Romanian procedural culture, sworn testimony is a solemn, clearly delineated act. The witness places a hand on the Bible. The judge reads an explicit caution regarding perjury. The procedural ritual makes the transition from conversation to sworn statement impossible to miss.

In Danish procedural culture, the transition is marked by the phrase behørigt formanet (“duly cautioned”). It is a legally weighty but linguistically compact formula. For a Romanian citizen without a certified interpreter, this formula can pass by without registering as the same solemn act it is under Danish law.

This is not a criticism of Danish procedure. Danish procedure is internally consistent and works excellently when all parties understand the language. It is, however, a reason why §149(1) exists: to ensure that cross-linguistic parties receive the same procedural signals as native speakers.

When the protection of §149(1) is not operational, the cultural mismatch becomes a legal problem: the party does not know, in the moment, that a statement has acquired criminal-sanction weight.

I did not know. I recognized it only afterward, when I read the retsbog and found DKK 14 million attributed to me. That is part of why I am writing this article — so that the next EU citizen in a cross-border proceeding recognizes it in the moment.

💼 What is at stake, in one table

These assets are now under the control of the liquidator pending the outcome of the appeal. This is why the appeal also requests suspensive effect under retsplejeloven §395 — a request that the liquidation be paused while Østre Landsret examines the procedural questions.

Suspensive effect is a standard procedural instrument. It does not prejudge merits. It preserves the status quo. The decision on suspensive effect is entirely within Østre Landsret’s authority. I respectfully leave the question to the court.

🇪🇺 For readers — what EU procedural protections you have

If you are an EU citizen doing business in Denmark — or in any other Member State where your native language differs from the court’s — here are the protections that apply to you:

1) Certified interpretation (retsplejeloven §149(1) Denmark, or equivalent). Request it in writing before any hearing where you may speak.

2) Consular notification (Vienna Convention Article 36). If your consulate has not been notified, notify them yourself in writing before the hearing.

3) Independent interpreter. If examined under criminal sanction, you are entitled to an interpreter independent of the opposing party. This is general EU law.

4) Accurate court record. The retsbog is the record of your statements. If it does not match what you said, mechanisms exist for challenge: audio verification, witness examination, retsbog corrections.

5) Appeal on procedural grounds. Danish kæreskrift under retsplejeloven §393 allows appeal of procedural defects to the High Court, without the need for a Danish attorney. Self-representation (selvmøderprincippet, §260) is permitted.

None of these rights is obscure. All are in statutes and treaties. The hard part is recognizing, in the moment, when they are being tested.

🔍 What this article is, and is not

• Not a claim that the 17 April ruling was unlawful. That is a question for Østre Landsret.

• Not an allegation of bad faith against any judge, attorney, or party.

• Not a commentary on whether Shape Robotics should be liquidated.

• Not a campaign to pressure the High Court.

• An educational explainer about EU procedural rights and their application on 17 April 2026.

• A transparent record of what I have asked Østre Landsret to examine, with the underlying documents attached.

• An act of confidence in the same Østre Landsret that ruled unanimously on 5 March 2026 and will rule on its own schedule on this appeal.

✉️ For 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 filed documents. If I have nonetheless made a factual error, I want to know, and I will correct it.

🏛️ The Denmark I still believe in

I came to Denmark believing in the tradition of Kierkegaard, Andersen, and the maritime merchants. I wrote about that tradition in Make Denmark Great Again, four months ago. Forty-six days and two high-profile court rulings later, I believe in it more, not less.

Østre Landsret’s ruling of 5 March 2026 was unanimous. Five judges examined the record, applied the law, and reached a conclusion. That is the Denmark I came to. That is the Denmark with jurisdiction over my appeal. That is the Denmark I am addressing when I file 80 pages of documents today.

Transparency serves that Denmark. Not the one that cancels inconvenient voices through noise-engineering — the one from the earlier article. The one that produced Kierkegaard, the Vikings, the maritime merchants, and the five-judge panel that reads the record carefully.

The documents are attached. The appeal is filed. The next decision is not mine.

—

Mark Abraham — Founder & CEO, Shape Robotics A/S — Administrator, Shape Robotics România S.R.L. — Romanian citizen — Copenhagen / Bucharest — mark@shaperobotics.com — +40 749 288 688

“A system that survives on silence dies the moment someone refuses to be canceled — but the refusal is worth more when it is filed through proper channels, documented in the official record, and offered in good faith to the court that decides.”

#GameOver #ShapeRobotics #EUlaw #DueProcess #ViennaConvention #Retsplejeloven #Directive201064EU #WildCEO

📎 Complete evidence file attached to this post

Each attachment is a document either filed today in a Danish or Romanian court, or transmitted today to an official authority. Everything in this article is sourced to these files.

📄 Kaereskrift_COMPLET_SK-524-2026-SHR.pdf — 80 pages — Bilingual (Danish / English) — Complete appeal filed today with Østre Landsret through Sø- og Handelsretten. Contains the appeal brief (14 pages) plus 8 exhibits: court record of 17 April 2026, kærevejledning (appeal guidance), reference to the 5 March 2026 annulment, Company Announcement 10-26, the Bucharest criminal complaint with its 8 annexes (RO + EN), the gældbogsliste listing, the Formal Acknowledgment of 8 March 2026, and the appeal fee receipt placeholder

Kaereskrift Complet Sk 524 2026 Shr (1)

5.2MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

.

📄 SesizareAmbasada_COMPLETA.pdf — 71 pages — Romanian with English-translated components — Complete dossier provided today to the Romanian Embassy in Copenhagen under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Contains the consular notification itself (5 pages, Romanian), the full appeal, the 17 April 2026 court record, and the Bucharest criminal complaint with English translation.

Sesizare Ambasada Completa

2.68MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

All documents are complete, unredacted, and filed in an official proceeding. They are the record. This article has added nothing to them beyond explanation.

📨 Subscribe

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 documents and procedural posture:

Subscribe now

• Østre Landsret’s ruling on suspensive effect, when issued

• Any filings by the parties in the appeal

• Østre Landsret’s ruling on the merits

• Consular response from the Romanian Embassy

• Public progress of the Romanian criminal investigation

Share

Documentation over speculation. Procedure over noise. This is Wild CEO.

Leave a comment

💬 Join the conversation

Have a question about the appeal, the procedural issues, or EU cross-border rights? Join the chat below. I read every message.

Join Mark Abraham’s subscriber chat

Available in the Substack app and on web

Join chat

Get more from Mark Abraham in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Previous episodes: Day 40: In Court | Day 39: The Genoptagelse | Day 38: The Resurrection

44 days since the Danish High Court unanimously annulled the bankruptcy of Shape Robotics.

Yesterday three newspapers wrote our obituary. Today — a Saturday — I am going to do something none of them did: show you the actual documents.

I received six files from the court after yesterday’s hearing. Six bankruptcy petitions — the ones the judge referenced when she decided to appoint Teis Gullitz-Wormslev’s team as liquidator. The ones that Børsen buried in a sub-clause. The ones that the Nordnet commentators are speculating about without having read a single page.

I am going to show you every petition, every amount, every creditor, every filing date. Full transparency. Because that is what the press will never give you.

Every court filing. Every bankruptcy petition. Every receipt. No paywall on the truth.

First: What the Judge Actually Said

I need to correct something that the press either misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented.

“The judge yesterday had absolutely no — let’s say — the case had no connection with the six bankruptcy claims. What the judge said is that because there are six bankruptcy claims registered, she believes that it is safer for the company to be under liquidation. That means there is somebody taking care of the company.”

“The judge didn’t take any sort of decision on the six bankruptcy claims. No. She has set a date on the 20th of May.”

The liquidation order and the bankruptcy petitions are two separate procedures under two separate laws. The judge appointed a liquidator under the Danish Companies Act (dissolution procedure). She did not rule on the bankruptcy petitions. Those petitions will be heard on 20 May 2026 — in one month.

The press merged both into one headline. “Shape Robotics sent to the grave.” That is either incompetent or deliberate. Either way, it is wrong.

The Six Petitions — Complete Breakdown

I have the six files in front of me. Here they are — every single one — with the exact amounts from the court documents. I will attach the full PDFs for you to download.

Petition 1: Gældsstyrelsen (Danish Tax Authority)

Case: K-2992/25
Filed: 5 November 2025
Creditor: Gældsstyrelsen (Danish Tax Authority / Skatteforvaltningen)
Representative: Anette Olesen, Specialkonsulent
Amount: DKK 508,037.43
Basis: Unpaid A-skat (employee withholding tax), AM-bidrag, corporate tax, VAT, and fees. Nine separate line items spanning January 2024 to June 2025.

This is the original bankruptcy petition — the one that started the chain of events in late 2025. The one combined with Treyd’s claim that led to the initial bankruptcy on 6 January 2026. The one where we were not correctly served and could not defend.

DKK 508,037. Half a million crowns. For a Nasdaq-listed company with EUR 10 million in intellectual property.

Petition 2: Treyd AB

Case: K-337/25
Filed: 25 November 2025
Creditor: Treyd AB (SE-559223-3208), Stockholm, Sweden
Law firm: GALST Advokataktieselskab (Henrik Drewes Rasmussen)
Amount: DKK 2,675,112.29 (principal) + DKK 1,253,618.55 (interest at 4% per month from December 2024) + DKK 720 (locksmith fee)
Total claimed: ~DKK 3,929,451
Basis: “Køb-nu-betal-senere” (buy-now-pay-later) financing agreements from January 2024. Shape assigned invoices to Treyd; Treyd paid Shape’s creditors; Shape was to repay within 120 days plus a fee.

Treyd is a Swedish fintech company. The dispute originated from invoice factoring agreements that went into default. A judgment was obtained from the fogedret (enforcement court) on 7 October 2024. Multiple partial payments were made. The bailiff visited Lyskær 3C, 4th floor, Herlev on 1 July 2025 and confirmed the company was still active.

Note: Treyd’s client proposes advokat Lotte Lundin as the bankruptcy trustee — not Kromann Reumert. They want a different trustee. That detail tells you something about how the market perceives Teis.

Petition 3: Interlex Advokater (for Eduard Munoz)

Case: K-18/26
Filed: 5 January 2026
Creditor: Eduard Munoz (former employee), represented by Prosa (IT union) via Interlex Advokater
Law firm: Interlex Advokater (Jesper Ganzhorn Ørskov), Aarhus
Amount: DKK 267,556
Basis: Unpaid wages for September, October, November 2025; salary during notice period (December 2025); pension contributions; holiday pay for 2024/2025.

Eduard Munoz was an employee. Monthly salary: DKK 40,000. He is owed three months of wages, a month of notice pay, pension, and holiday entitlements. His claim is represented by the IT professionals’ union, Prosa.

This is a straightforward employment claim. DKK 267,556. The kind of claim that gets resolved in a restructuring in the first week.

Petition 4: IDA (for Nicolás Laverde Alfonso)

Case: K-239/25
Filed: September 2025 (initial demand); bankruptcy petition filed subsequently
Creditor: Nicolás Laverde Alfonso (former employee), represented by Ingeniørforeningen IDA
Representative: Laura Bruun Pletscher, Legal consultant, IDA
Amount: DKK 203,428.56 (principal claim) + DKK 4,000 (court + legal fees)
Total claimed: ~DKK 207,429
Basis: Unpaid pension (May–August 2025), salary (August–September 2025), notice period compensation (October–November 2025), holiday pay, prayer day supplement.

Nicolás Laverde Alfonso was a Software Developer & Product Owner. He was terminated by me on 19 June 2025 with five months’ notice under the Salaried Employees Act. The termination letter is in the file — signed by both parties. His claim includes a DKK 618.16 discrepancy in the August payslip.

DKK 207,429. Represented by IDA, the Danish Society of Engineers. Another employment claim. Another amount that a solvent company resolves in days.

Petition 5: Danske Bank A/S and EIFO

Case: K-652/26
Filed: 19 March 2026
Creditors: Danske Bank A/S (CVR 61126228) and Danmarks Eksport- og Investeringsfond (EIFO, CVR 43478206)
Law firm: Kromann Reumert (Homa Rahbar Pakdel, Senior Associate; CC: Teis Gullitz-Wormslev, Albert Mungo Madsen)
Danske Bank claim: ~DKK 14,000,000
EIFO claim: ~DKK 6,000,000
Total claimed: ~DKK 20,000,000
Basis: Breached loan facilities and credit agreements. Danske Bank held a virksomhedspant (floating charge) of DKK 8,000,000 registered 18 February 2022. Facilities terminated by Danske Bank on 30 October 2025 and EIFO on 31 October 2025. An Afviklingsaftale (wind-down agreement) was signed on 28 November 2025 between Shape Robotics, Danske Bank, and EIFO — facilitated by Kromann Reumert.

Read that again.

Kromann Reumert filed this petition. Homa Rahbar Pakdel — the same lawyer who sat in the courtroom yesterday. CC’d to Teis Gullitz-Wormslev and Albert Mungo Madsen.

The same firm whose partner was the bankruptcy trustee. The same firm now appointed as liquidator. The same firm filing bankruptcy petitions against the company it is supposed to be supervising.

The Afviklingsaftale

This is the big claim. DKK 20 million. And it was filed by the man who now controls the company as liquidator ///////JOKE?

Petition 6: Danske Bank A/S and EIFO (Duplicate)

Case: K-653/26
Filed: 19 March 2026
Creditors: Same as Petition 5 — Danske Bank A/S and EIFO
Law firm: Kromann Reumert (same team)

This appears to be the same petition filed under a separate case number. Same parties, same amounts, same Afviklingsaftale, same Kromann Reumert letterhead. The court has assigned both K-652/26 and K-653/26. Both are scheduled for the 20 May hearing.

The Math

Now let me show you the number that no newspaper printed.

“A percentage of less than 10% are the ones that are asking for bankruptcy — because the rest, guess what? They don’t want bankruptcy.”

The exact percentage based on the filed amounts is 7.5%. But the principle holds: the overwhelming majority of the company’s value — over 92% — is held by stakeholders who did not file for bankruptcy. The 4,800 shareholders. The committed capital providers. The IP portfolio. The Romanian subsidiary.

And of the DKK 24.9 million in claims, over DKK 20 million comes from a single source: Kromann Reumert, filing on behalf of Danske Bank and EIFO. The same firm that is now the liquidator.

The estate is worth DKK 330 million. The claims total DKK 24.9 million. The company is solvent. The petitioners represent less than 8% of the estate value. And the largest petitioner is now the court-appointed liquidator.

The COMI Argument — Why Denmark Is Not the Battlefield

Now I am going to explain something that will matter more than anything else in the coming weeks. It is a legal concept called COMI — Center of Main Interest.

“In Europe, since 2000, there is a principle called COMI — Center of Main Interest. This article in the European Regulation states that in case of cross-border bankruptcies, the center of business — which is Romania — becomes the main bankruptcy estate.”

COMI is defined in EU Regulation 2015/848 on Insolvency Proceedings, Article 3(1). It establishes that insolvency proceedings shall be opened in the Member State where the debtor’s center of main interests is situated. The center of main interests is the place where the debtor conducts the administration of its interests on a regular basis and which is ascertainable by third parties.

Shape Robotics has always operated primarily through Romania. The Romanian subsidiary is where the employees work. Where the contracts are executed. Where the Unicredit credit facility sits. Where the operational center is.

“I am the director in Romania, which is the center of business for the company. What is more important right now is to understand the exact nature of the claims and the creditors — to build up very well the plan of re-engaging the company. And this is not something that will be done through Denmark. It is something that will be done through the power of the creditors generated from the center of interest, which is not Denmark.”

What this means in practice:

If Shape Robotics’ COMI is established in Romania — which the operational history supports — then the primary insolvency or restructuring proceedings would fall under Romanian jurisdiction, not Danish. The Danish proceedings would become secondary. The six petitions filed in Copenhagen would be subordinate to the primary proceedings.

“Unfortunately, the business has always been done outside the borders of Denmark. And that’s why you see these marginal six bankruptcy claims — it’s nothing when we are talking about the contamination that has occurred from the wrongful bankruptcy, that basically destroyed value in the subsidiary.”

This is not a theory. This is EU law. And it changes everything.

Share

DKK 24.9 million in claims against a DKK 330 million estate. The math is public now. Share it with anyone who read yesterday’s obituary.

The Contamination Problem

Here is the part that no one in the Danish press has understood — or wants to understand.

“In the 59 days the company in Denmark was run by Teis, the company had assets in the subsidiaries that were written down to zero — which was basically the equity investment in the subsidiaries, 100% ownership of those subsidiaries. In that interval of time where the trustee was in charge, the subsidiaries had no management.”

During the 59-day bankruptcy administration (6 January – 5 March 2026), Teis Gullitz-Wormslev was the trustee of the parent company. The parent owns 100% of the subsidiaries — Shape Robotics Romania, Shape Robotics Finland, Shape Robotics Poland.

The trustee appointed no management to any subsidiary. Zero. For 59 days, these operating companies had no one at the helm.

“That’s why we have forced bankruptcies or insolvency cases or dissolution cases in the subsidiaries — because they have had no management.”

The subsidiaries had credit facilities with Unicredit. When the Danish parent was declared bankrupt, those facilities defaulted. Cross-border contamination. Value destroyed not because the subsidiaries were insolvent, but because the trustee’s inaction caused cascading defaults.

“This is what happened in the subsidiaries during the 59 days. And pay attention — me as a CEO and the board elected, we still have no chance of putting the Danish Business Authority in the situation to accept our registrations, because we still didn’t receive the documents of the company. They still sit with the trustee, and now they’re still with the liquidator.”

“The fault lies 100% on the lack of judgment and professionalism of the trustee.”

The same trustee who is now the liquidator. The same man whose 59-day tenure destroyed subsidiary value across four countries. The same man who now has “another job that he will poorly execute — more reason for us to build up a very beautiful claim against him.”

The Auditor Problem — Why the Liquidation Is Actually Useful

This is the part that will surprise you.

“I believe the judge has made a very clever — although you might think it’s not — decision. We got a liquidator in place. What I don’t find very transparent is why Teis has become [liquidator], because I believe he should normally not be in this position. But as he is in this position, it’s only good for us.”

“I would have been in the position to find an auditor — which is a task that, with the media pressure and with the lack of documents and everything blocked by Teis, was an uphill battle. The risk for us to find an auditor in the next two weeks — when was the term the DBA gave us — would be a mission impossible and would be a failure on my side.”

Here is the calculation nobody made:

The DBA had given us a deadline to register an auditor. In Denmark, the market is small. Every auditor knows every lawyer. The media coverage has made Shape Robotics toxic — not because the company is problematic, but because association with the name carries reputational risk.

“It would have been impossible for us to find a Danish auditor. So we had to find an international one. And here it gets tricky and complicated and complex.”

The liquidation order removes that pressure. With a liquidator appointed, the auditor deadline is no longer our immediate problem. The liquidator assumes the obligation. And Teis — who created the problem by not returning documents — now has to solve it.

“We can relax and make sure that we are now doing the restructuring.”

What Happens Monday

“Most likely on Monday, he will already submit a new bankruptcy claim. The bankruptcy as a liquidator — he will request the company to be put in liquidation. But this is a different scenario because Teis has the same role as I had before. So he’s a director in a sense under this procedure of liquidation. He takes the full burden and responsibility.”

“What we made very clear in front of the court is that the company is solvent and has a lot of assets.”

Teis as liquidator is not the same as Teis as trustee. As liquidator, he has fiduciary obligations. He must act in the interest of all stakeholders — not just the creditors he represents. If he pushes the company into bankruptcy while evidence shows it is solvent, he assumes personal liability.

We documented the company’s solvency in open court. EUR 10 million in IP. Equity in subsidiaries. Contractual value. The court registered all of it.

The Rachella Update

Remember the joke from yesterday? Itzik and Moritz?

“We can relax. We can enjoy the weekend. Now it’s Teis’s problem.”

“Tomorrow I have an important day because we’re preparing something big for next week.”

I am drinking a beer with Alex. Our daughters are with us. The war room is warm.

Next week, the plan unravels. And it will be a shock.

“I’m so excited about what’s going to happen next week that everybody will fall from their chairs.”

The Scoreboard After 44 Days

Day 41 — 18 April 2026Day 41 — 18 April 2026​

The Documents

All six bankruptcy petitions are attached to this episode for download. Full transparency. Read them yourself.

Petition 1 — Gældsstyrelsen: Case K-2992/25. DKK 508,037. Tax authority claim.

K23925

14.6MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Petition 2 — Treyd AB: Case K-337/25. ~DKK 3.9M. Swedish fintech trade credit claim.

K33725

16.3MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Petition 3 — Interlex / Eduard Munoz: Case K-18/26. DKK 267,556. Employee wages claim.

K1826

9.89MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Petition 4 — IDA / Nicolás Laverde Alfonso: Case K-239/25. DKK 207,429. Employee wages claim.

Petition 5 — Kromann Reumert / Danske Bank + EIFO: Case K-652/26. ~DKK 20M. Bank facilities claim.

K65226

9.65MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Petition 6 — Kromann Reumert / Danske Bank + EIFO: Case K-653/26. Duplicate of Petition 5.

K65326

9.6MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Court hearing for all six petitions: 20 May 2026, Sø- og Handelsretten.

For the 4,800

You have the numbers now. Not from a headline. Not from a Nordnet commenter who hikes in the south of France when it is not the season. From the actual court documents.

DKK 24.9 million in claims. DKK 330 million in estate value. A company that is solvent. A CEO who showed his passport to the judge. A board elected unanimously. EUR 16 million committed.

And a plan for next week that will make everybody fall from their chairs.

Have a good weekend. The Rachella Principle is in effect. Now it is Teis’s problem.

What Happens Next

Monday: Expect Teis to file a new bankruptcy petition as liquidator. We are prepared.

This week: The plan unravels. Surprises incoming.

23 April: Nasdaq counter-deadline. 5 days.

20 May: All six bankruptcy petitions heard. We will be there.

90-day window: Genoptagelse / reinstatement period active.

The Full Investigation

Day 40: In Court — Three obituaries. Zero context. The courtroom story.

Day 39: The Genoptagelse — Nasdaq confirms the only obstacle. We had already removed it.

Day 38: The Resurrection — EGM passes, Phase Education is born.

Day 37: 18 Questions — The interrogation before the vote.

Day 34: The Regulator Agrees — DFSA confirms market abuse.

Start Here — The Wild CEO Story — New to this? Begin with the data.

wildceo.live — The full investigation site.

Leave a comment

You have the documents. You have the math. What do you see?

GAME OVER | Day 41 — 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 18, 2026. Day 41. The Six Claims.

Get more from Mark Abraham in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

This episode includes the full community Q&A livestream from 17 April 2026, recorded live from Copenhagen Airport immediately after the hearing. Watch above or read below.

Previous episodes: Day 39: The Genoptagelse | Day 38: The Resurrection | Day 37: 18 Questions

43 days since the Danish High Court unanimously annulled the bankruptcy of Shape Robotics.

Today, three Danish newspapers published articles about what happened this morning at Sø- og Handelsretten. All three wrote the same story: Shape Robotics is dead. The grave is open. It is over.

None of them wrote what actually happened in that courtroom. None of them quoted what I said. None of them reported the facts that contradict their own headlines.

So I will.

What the Press Wrote

Børsen — “Retten har talt: Shape Robotics sendes mod graven” — “The court has spoken: Shape Robotics is sent to the grave.” By Kasper Ohmeyer, Leonora Beck, Simon Kirketerp, and Johan Christensen. Published 17 April 2026, 14:28.

Finans — “Tidligere Shape Robotics-kurator skal lukke selskabet” — “Former Shape Robotics trustee to shut down the company.” By William Alkærsig Springer, Tobias Hansen Bødker, and Jesper Kroer Høberg. Published 17 April 2026, 14:50.

Ekstra Bladet — “Det er slut: Shape Robotics skal afvikles” — “It’s over: Shape Robotics to be liquidated.” By Merle Huse Svensson. Published 17 April 2026, 17:13.

Three obituaries. Same day. Same narrative. No context. No contradicting facts. No quote from the CEO who was standing in the courtroom.

Now here is what I actually said — recorded live, sixty minutes after the ruling, from Copenhagen Airport, on my way back to the war room.

The press writes the obituary. I write the investigation. Every filing, every court date, every receipt.

The Press Says: “It’s Over”

Here is what I said:

“It doesn’t change so much the plan that we have, in the sense that it delays a little bit the releasing of the company. But on the other hand, it also puts a ton of pressure on Teis — which we like.”

“We have 90 days in which to recover the company, to put it back on track. We have the appeal for this decision in 14 days. We have several ways of counteracting the decision of the DBA.”

The press wrote “det er slut” — it’s over. But the ruling itself grants 90 days for reinstatement and a 14-day appeal window. That is not “over.” That is a procedure. The press did not mention either deadline.

The Press Says: “Sent to the Grave”

Here is what I said:

“This is not a final decision at all. In 14 days, we can appeal.”

“It was one of the scenarios that was always on the table. That’s why we were present here. It was very important to be in person, not to create the image that we are hiding from anything.”

Børsen wrote that Shape Robotics is being “sent to the grave.” They failed to report that I — the CEO — flew to Denmark, walked into the courtroom, presented my passport to the judge, and explained the company’s assets for the record. You do not fly to Copenhagen to attend your own funeral. You fly to Copenhagen to fight.

The Press Says: “The Former Trustee Shuts Down the Company”

Here is what I said:

“Teis is back, but Teis is back now in a position that it’s called liquidator. And this liquidator is — it’s totally different from the curator. It’s a pre-insolvency procedure. It’s a procedure where a company can be reinstated with the will of the shareholders — which we already have.”

Finans wrote that the former trustee will “shut down the company.” But Danish company law is explicit: liquidation under Section 231 is not shutdown. It is a supervised procedure where genoptagelse — reinstatement — is a statutory right. The shareholders have already voted. The EGM passed on 14 April. The board was elected. The capital is committed. Finans did not mention genoptagelse. Not once.

The Press Says: “The Court Decided”

Here is what I said:

“The Trade Registry didn’t register correctly or in time the results of the EGM. So it’s grotesque, in my opinion, the whole setup.”

“We have submitted in time on the 14th after the EGM. We had the public EGM. We explained, of course, very professionally. We brought in the documents necessary to present that the EGM was in place and everything was in order.”

“Yes, it is the DBA’s fault not processing the documents.”

The court acted on a dissolution request filed by Erhvervsstyrelsen — a request based on deficiencies that had already been remedied before the request was filed. The EGM passed on 14 April. The remedy letter was delivered on 15 April under Sagsnummer #143927. The dissolution request was filed after. None of the three newspapers reported this timeline. None of them asked why a government agency filed for dissolution of a company that had already fixed the problem.

The Press Did Not Report: The Kromann Reumert Coincidence

Here is what I said:

“Just a couple of minutes before the meeting started, the lawyer team from Kromann Reumert joined the meeting — although they were not supposed to be part of the meeting.”

“She was appointing, of course, the two lawyers that were sitting in the background for an hour or so — as liquidators.”

“I think it’s a huge conflict of interest. It’s a mistake.”

“He didn’t even have the guts to come into court knowing that I would be there. He sent his minion there to be part of this meeting.”

Kromann Reumert — the firm whose partner Teis Gullitz-Wormslev served as bankruptcy trustee, the firm that has not returned a single document in 43 days, the firm named in our criminal complaint (reference 0100-83986-10362-26), the firm that filed one of the six bankruptcy petitions against the company — showed up two minutes before the hearing, uninvited. And walked out as the court-appointed liquidator.

The press treated this as a neutral appointment. It is not neutral. The same firm is simultaneously a petitioning creditor and the court-appointed administrator. Teis Gullitz-Wormslev did not attend. He sent his associates. Finans mentioned it in the headline but did not question it. Børsen did not question it. Ekstra Bladet did not question it.

What none of the three newspapers reported: The CEO was in the courtroom. The company presented EUR 10 million in IP assets to the judge. The EGM had already passed. The board was already elected. Genoptagelse was already filed. The dissolution was filed after the remedy. And the appointed liquidator has an active criminal complaint filed against his firm.

The Press Did Not Report: The Company Is Not Insolvent

Here is what I said:

“We cooperated with the court and we were prepared to showcase — and this is the most important aspect — to showcase the court that this is a company that is not insolvent.”

“The company has three categories of assets. Category number one is the intellectual property — Fable, Fable AI, everything that we own — evaluated around 10 million euros.”

“We explained the structure with Shape Robotics Romania and how there is right now this contamination that came from the subsidiaries to the mother company due to the fact that the bankruptcy ruling in Denmark defaulted several important credit facilities with Unicredit.”

I presented the company’s asset base to the court under oath. EUR 10 million in intellectual property. Equity in the Romanian subsidiary. Contractual value. The court registered all of this information. The press reported none of it. When you write an obituary, the patient’s vital signs are inconvenient.

The Press Did Not Report: Romania

Here is what I said:

“I’m the director in Romania, which is the center of business for the company. So Mr. Teis has to answer to my questions right now, even if he thinks that he’s the liquidator of the mother company — because right now I represent the creditors in Romania.”

This is the fact that no Danish journalist knows yet. The Romanian subsidiary is where the operational center sits. The subsidiary holds assets, employees, contracts, and the Unicredit credit facility. Under Romanian law, the subsidiary’s director represents the interests of creditors. The liquidator of the Danish parent has limited authority over the Romanian entity.

The balance of power is not what the headlines suggest.

[Share this post]
If you know a SHAPE shareholder who read today’s headlines and thinks it’s over — send them this. Three obituaries. Zero context. This is the context.

The Press Did Not Report: What I Told Their Reporter

Here is what I said:

“The guy at the newspaper, he was a nice guy, very polite. He said: ‘Please don’t laugh — this is a bad decision.’ I said: for whom? For Teis, it is. For me, it’s absolutely part of a setup that we knew about.”

“When we exited the court, we had the impression we were going to get arrested or something, because there was paparazzi taking pictures of me and Alex, running around us taking pictures. We were expecting a handcuff show.”

“I asked: what is the big interest surrounding this company? We have proven that it was the victim of a pump, and now the system is trying to put these things in order.”

The press sent reporters and photographers. They ran around us taking pictures. Then they went back to their desks and wrote obituaries that omitted every fact I presented to the court and every word I said to them outside it.

What Liquidation Actually Means — Since the Press Will Not Explain It

Liquidation≠BankruptcyLiquidation=Bankruptcy

This equation is the one thing every shareholder needs to understand, and the one thing every headline obscured.

Liquidation (likvidation) under the Danish Companies Act is a pre-insolvency procedure. The court appoints a liquidator to supervise the resolution of the company’s affairs. The company can be reinstated under genoptagelse (Sections 231–232 of the Selskabsloven) if the deficiency that triggered the dissolution is remedied.

The deficiency was remedied before the dissolution was filed.

What the press wroteWhat the law says”It’s over” (Ekstra Bladet)90-day reinstatement window under ”Sent to the grave” (Børsen)14-day appeal window; first-instance decision only”Shut down the company” (Finans)Liquidator’s mandate includes reinstatementNo mention of assets EUR 10M IP presented to courtNo mention of EGMBoard elected 14 April, 100% in favourNo mention of capitalEUR 16M committedNo mention of conflict of interestLiquidator’s firm has active criminal complaint

“Imagine if that had happened before the EGM — then this was the end of Shape. Now it’s just stupid what they’re doing.”

The Scoreboard After 43 Days

MilestoneStatusHigh Court annulment✓ 5 MarchEGM passed✓ 14 AprilBoard elected✓ Nețin, Okkola, Ambrozie — 100%EUR 16M committed✓ Alumni Capital + othersCriminal complaint filed✓ 0100-83986-10362-26DFSA reprimand issued✓ 7 AprilCompany Announcements✓ 13 publishedNasdaq response✓ 47 pages deliveredGenoptagelse filed✓ 15 AprilLiquidation ordered← 17 AprilAppeal window14 daysBankruptcy petitions hearing20 May — six petitionsGenoptagelse window90 days

Three newspapers say it is over. The law says we have 90 days. I choose the law.

For the 4,800

I know what you read today. I know you read “graven” — the grave. I know Ekstra Bladet told you “det er slut.” I know Finans told you the trustee is back to shut it down.

Here is what they did not tell you.

Your CEO was in the courtroom. I showed the judge my passport. I presented EUR 10 million in assets. I answered every question. I accepted service for the bankruptcy petitions — in person, not by mail, not through a lawyer’s letter. I stood in front of a Danish court and said: this company is not insolvent.

Then I walked out, got in a car to the airport, opened a livestream, and told you everything within the hour. Every word. No filter. No press office. No corporate statement drafted by a PR firm.

The press did not do that. The press published the same headline three times from three desks and did not include a single fact that contradicts the narrative they chose before the hearing started.

This is not the grave. This is the courtroom. And the courtroom gave us 90 days and an appeal.

“I’m so excited about what’s going to happen next week that everybody will fall from their chairs.”

What Happens Next

This weekend: Strategic session with the board and legal team. We cannot share what we decided with Alex today. It will be unveiled next week.

14-day appeal window: Evaluating all instruments at our disposal.

Next week: Surprises.

20 May: Six bankruptcy petitions hearing. We will be there.

23 April: Nasdaq counter-deadline. 6 days.

The Documents

Børsen: “Retten har talt: Shape Robotics sendes mod graven” — borsen.dk, 17 April 2026

Finans: “Tidligere Shape Robotics-kurator skal lukke selskabet” — finans.dk, 17 April 2026

Ekstra Bladet: “Det er slut: Shape Robotics skal afvikles” — ekstrabladet.dk, 17 April 2026

Court case: SK-524/2026-SHR — Sø- og Handelsretten, 17 April 2026

Company Announcement No. 13-26 — published on Cision

Community livestream: Recorded live from Copenhagen Airport, 17 April 2026 — [watch above]

The Full Investigation

Day 39: The Genoptagelse — Nasdaq confirms the only obstacle. We had already removed it.

Day 38: The Resurrection — EGM passes, Phase Education is born

Live EGM — Video + Company Announcement — The full 42-minute live stream

Day 37: 18 Questions — The interrogation before the vote

Day 34: The Regulator Agrees — DFSA confirms market abuse

Start Here — The Wild CEO Story — New to this? Begin with the data.

wildceo.live — The full investigation site: every document, every filing, every receipt

Leave a comment

The press wrote three obituaries today. What do they know that the law doesn’t? I want to hear from you.

GAME OVER | Day 40 — Subscribe at substack.wildceo.live for real-time updates. Join the community chat for daily discussions.

Shape Robotics A/S | CVR DK38322656 | Nasdaq: SHAPE | ISIN: DK0061273125

Mark-Robert Abraham, Founder and CEO — Phase Education A/S

April 17, 2026. Day 40. In Court.

Get more from Mark Abraham in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

This episode includes the full community Q&A livestream recording from 15 April 2026. Watch above or read below.

Previous episodes: Day 38: The Resurrection | Day 37: 18 Questions | Day 34: The Regulator Agrees

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

Nasdaq Confirms: The Only Obstacle Left Is One We Already Removed

GAME OVER | Day 39: The Genoptagelse

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 Company’s reinstatement proceedings.

The full GAME OVER investigation — 39 episodes documenting the annulment of the bankruptcy, the criminal complaint, the DFSA reprimand, and the fight for 4,800 shareholders — is available at substack.wildceo.live.

41 days since the Danish High Court unanimously annulled the bankruptcy of Shape Robotics.

Today, Nasdaq OMX Copenhagen issued a one-paragraph update via MarketWire: trading in Shape Robotics remains suspended. The reason? “Det fremgår af Det Centrale Virksomhedsregister, at selskabet er under tvangsopløsning.” — The Central Business Register shows the company is under compulsory dissolution.

Read that carefully. Nasdaq is not citing a missing board. Not missing capital. Not a regulatory investigation. The sole stated reason for continued suspension is the tvangsopløsning — the compulsory dissolution that Erhvervsstyrelsen filed yesterday, based on a deficiency we had already remedied.

Which means the moment the genoptagelse is processed — the moment Erhvervsstyrelsen confirms the dissolution is withdrawn — Nasdaq’s stated reason for suspension ceases to exist. The path to trading resumption is no longer a negotiation. It is a paperwork correction.

This is the best news we have received since the High Court annulled the bankruptcy.

But let me tell you how we got here, because the timeline is absurd.

What Happened Yesterday — The Good Part

At 14:40 CEST on 14 April 2026, the Extraordinary General Meeting of Shape Robotics A/S passed. Every single resolution. Unanimously or near-unanimously.

New Board of Directors elected: Aurel Nețin (Chairman), Kim Okkola, Alexandru Ambrozie. 100% in favour. Authorization to issue 100,000,000 new shares. 100% in favour. Company renamed Phase Education A/S. 100% in favour. Registered office moved to Copenhagen. 100% in favour. Mandate to pursue D&O claims against former board. 90.6% in favour. Mandate to pursue claims against Carnegie Investment Bank. 90.6% in favour.

41.2% of the share capital was represented. The shareholders spoke. Shape Robotics is alive, governed, and moving forward.

I published Company Announcement No. 11-26 on Cision the same evening, disclosing the Alumni Capital EUR 1,000,000 convertible facility and demanding immediate trading resumption under observation.

What Happened Yesterday — The Absurd Part

Three hours before our EGM started — while our shareholders were logging in, while our voting system was open, while every person involved knew exactly what was about to happen — the Danish Business Authority (Erhvervsstyrelsen) filed a request with the Maritime and Commercial Court to dissolve Shape Robotics.

Let me say that again.

The trade registry of Denmark asked a court to dissolve a listed company with 4,800 shareholders and EUR 16 million in committed capital — three hours before the same company was holding a general meeting to resolve every issue the trade registry was complaining about.

The grounds? Section 225(1)(2) of the Danish Companies Act: the company does not have a lawful registered address.

Except it did.

TIMELINE SUMMARY: Erhvervsstyrelsen filed for dissolution of Shape Robotics on 15 April 2026 — after the EGM had passed, after a new board was elected, after the address was changed, and after a comprehensive remedy letter was delivered under Sagsnummer #143927. The hearing is set for Thursday 17 April. Case SK-524/2026-SHR.

The Timeline That Makes No Sense

Here is what actually happened, in order:

12 March 2026: Erhvervsstyrelsen gives Shape Robotics a deadline to register a lawful address.

25 March 2026: I register Vesterbrogade 74, 1620 Copenhagen V as the new address.

26 March 2026: Erhvervsstyrelsen’s own caseworker, Amalie Compen Skakun, under Sagsnummer #137907, explicitly confirms the address is acceptable. Registers it. Matter closed.

14 April 2026 at 14:40 CEST: The Company holds its EGM. New board elected. Board resolves to change the registered address to c/o Bo Kretzschmer Larsen, Gammel Byvej 4B, st. tv., 2650 Hvidovre — the home address of a shareholder who signed a formal consent for service of process.

14 April 2026: Erhvervsstyrelsen receives a notification from the Court that the Company could not be contacted at Vesterbrogade 74.

15 April 2026 at 16:01 CEST: The Company sends Erhvervsstyrelsen a comprehensive letter (Sagsnummer #143927) containing the new address, the new board, EGM minutes, voting reports, passport copies, Bo Larsen’s consent, and a formal request under Section 144(4) to appoint an auditor.

15 April 2026 — AFTER all of the above: Erhvervsstyrelsen files the dissolution request.

They filed the dissolution request after receiving the Company’s remedy. After the EGM had passed. After the board was elected. After the address was changed. After everything they were asking for had been done.

Genoptagelse — The Word You Need to Know

In Danish company law, when a trade registry files for compulsory dissolution, the company has a procedure called genoptagelse — literally “resumption” or “reinstatement.” It is governed by Sections 231–232 of the Danish Companies Act (Selskabsloven).

Genoptagelse means: “We fixed the problem. Take us back.”

Here is what genoptagelse requires: The deficiency that triggered the dissolution must be remedied. An application for genoptagelse must be filed with Erhvervsstyrelsen. The company must register a lawful address and a functioning management. The application must be filed within 3 months of the dissolution request.

Every single one of these conditions is met. The deficiency — no board, no address — was remedied on 14 April, before the dissolution was even filed. The genoptagelse application is being submitted to Erhvervsstyrelsen as I write this. The new address (Bo Larsen, Gammel Byvej 4B, 2650 Hvidovre) is confirmed with a signed consent. The new board is elected with passport copies submitted.

This is not a legal battle. This is a paperwork correction.

“They filed for dissolution after we had already dissolved the problem.”

The Auditor — And Why Erhvervsstyrelsen Should Appoint One

The one box we cannot tick immediately is the auditor. And I want to explain why, because this matters.

Shape Robotics was under bankruptcy administration for 59 days. During those 59 days, the court-appointed trustee — Teis Gullitz-Wormslev of Kromann Reumert — had sole control of every financial record, every bank statement, every accounting file, every document the company has ever produced.

Since the bankruptcy was annulled on 5 March, the trustee has not returned a single document. Not one page. We have demanded the return of company property in writing every single day for 41 days. We have filed a criminal complaint (reference 0100-83986-10362-26). The response from Kromann Reumert: silence.

No auditor can audit a company that has no financial records. We have contacted four audit firms. Every single one has confirmed: engagement is impossible without the underlying documentation.

This is why, in our letter of 15 April, the Board formally requested that Erhvervsstyrelsen appoint an auditor under Section 144(4) of the Danish Companies Act. This section states:

“Erhvervsstyrelsen kan udnævne en revisor, hvis et revisionspligtigt kapitalselskab ikke har den påkrævede revisor og et medlem af ledelsen eller en kapitalejer anmoder herom.”

Translation: Erhvervsstyrelsen can appoint an auditor if a company that is required to have one does not have one, and a member of management requests it.

We are management. We have requested it. The law is clear.

And here is the strategic value: an auditor appointed by the government has authority to demand the company’s records from the trustee. Kromann Reumert can ignore our letters. They cannot ignore a government-appointed auditor.

The Court Hearing — Thursday 17 April

The Maritime and Commercial Court (Sø- og Handelsretten) has scheduled a hearing for Thursday, 17 April 2026 at 11:00. Case number SK-524/2026-SHR.

We have written to both Erhvervsstyrelsen and the Court requesting: Erhvervsstyrelsen withdraw the dissolution request, since the grounds were remedied before it was filed. The Court dismiss or adjourn the hearing. If the hearing proceeds, our representative will attend to confirm that all deficiencies have been resolved.

I expect this to be resolved without drama. The Company has a board. The Company has an address. The Company has requested an auditor under the law. There is nothing left to dissolve.

The Pattern

I want to step back for a moment and ask you to see the pattern.

6 January 2026: Bankruptcy declared. Annulled 5 March. 13 March 2026: First demand to Kromann Reumert. 41 days, no response. 10 April 2026: Nasdaq sends 14-page investigation letter. Company responds same day with 47 pages. Nasdaq has not replied. 15 April 2026: Erhvervsstyrelsen files for dissolution — based on a deficiency that was remedied the day before.

Every institution that should be helping this company survive is instead creating obstacles that the company has to overcome one by one, day by day, while the actual perpetrators — the trustee who destroyed EUR 100 million in value, the analyst who published a manipulative recommendation, the board members who were negligent — face no consequences.

And yet. Here we are. Day 39. Board elected. EUR 16 million committed. Criminal complaint active. DFSA reprimand issued. 11 Company Announcements published. 47 pages to Nasdaq. A genoptagelse filed.

We are still here. We are not going anywhere.

The scoreboard after 41 days: Board elected ✓ | EUR 16M committed ✓ | Criminal complaint filed ✓ | DFSA reprimand issued ✓ | 11 Company Announcements ✓ | 47 pages to Nasdaq ✓ | Genoptagelse filed ✓

For the 4,800

A hearing on Thursday does not mean your company is being dissolved. It means a bureaucratic error is being corrected in a courtroom instead of an office. The EGM passed. The board is elected. The capital is committed. The reconstruction plan is ready.

Everything that was supposed to happen has happened. The paperwork just needs to catch up with reality.

And it will.

What Happens Next

Thursday 17 April: Court hearing. We expect dismissal or adjournment.

This week: Genoptagelse processed by Erhvervsstyrelsen.

23 April: Nasdaq counter-deadline. 8 days.

Week of 21 April: Reconstruction filing with the court (subject to board timeline).

The Documents

Everything referenced in this announcement is publicly available:

Company Announcement No. 11-26 — Alumni Capital EUR 1M convertible facility + Nasdaq trading resumption demand — published on Cision

Company Announcement No. 12-26 — EGM results, 14 April 2026 (forthcoming)

Finanstilsynet reprimand, 7 April 2026 — finanstilsynet.dk

Nasdaq MarketWire update, 15 April 2026 — nordnet.dk

The Full Investigation

This Company Announcement is Day 39 of the GAME OVER investigation — the real-time documentation of how a listed company with 4,800 shareholders fights back after an annulled bankruptcy, a detained trustee who will not return the records, and a regulatory system that moves slower than the people trying to survive it.

Read the full series:

Day 38: The Resurrection — EGM passes, Phase Education is born

Live EGM — Video + Company Announcement — The full 42-minute live stream and official resolutions

Day 37: 18 Questions — The interrogation before the vote

Day 34: The Regulator Agrees — DFSA confirms market abuse

Start Here — The Wild CEO Story — New to this? Begin with the data.

wildceo.live — The full investigation site: every document, every filing, every receipt

wildceo.live/egm — EGM documentation and voting results

This announcement is published simultaneously on Nasdaq MarketWire via Cision, the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority’s OAM system, and the Wild CEO Investigation at substack.wildceo.live.

Subscribe to GAME OVER for real-time updates. Every filing, every court date, every receipt. The dissolution of a dissolution.

Shape Robotics A/S
CVR: DK38322656
Nasdaq Copenhagen: SHAPE
ISIN: DK0061273125

Investor Relations:
Mark-Robert Abraham, Founder and CEO
E: mark@shaperobotics.com
T: +45 31 65 64 50
W: wildceo.live | substack.wildceo.live

This announcement may contain forward-looking statements based on current expectations and assumptions. Actual results may differ materially from those projected. All facts referenced herein are documented and publicly accessible through the links above.

Mark-Robert Abraham, Founder and CEO — Phase Education A/S (formerly Shape Robotics A/S)

April 15, 2026. Day 39. The genoptagelse.

Get more from Mark Abraham in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

There is a word in Romanian that I have never been able to translate properly into English. The word is *stăruință*. It means something close to commitment, but not exactly. It carries within it an acknowledgment that the commitment will cost you something. That it already has. That the pain is not a side effect — it is the mechanism. You do not stăruință your way through something pleasant. You stăruință your way through fire. And when you come out the other side, the word does not describe triumph. It describes the fact that you did not stop.

Today was the day that stăruință became a result.

---

> Shape Robotics A/S held its Extraordinary General Meeting on April 14, 2026. All resolutions passed. Aurel Nețin elected Chairman. Company name changed to Phase Education A/S. Registered office moved to Copenhagen. Documents filed with the Danish Business Authority within hours. Registration expected by tomorrow.

---

If you watched the live stream — and many of you did — you already know the headlines. The [company announcement](https://substack.wildceo.live/p/live-egm) is published. But the headlines do not capture what happened in that room today, and they do not capture what it means. So let me tell you.

This was the largest shareholder participation in the history of Shape Robotics. Larger than any AGM. Larger than any previous extraordinary meeting. Every single resolution was adopted. Not a close vote. Not a contested outcome. The shareholders spoke — and what they said was: we trust this direction, we approve this board, and we are ready to rebuild.

The board is now led by **Aurel Nețin** as Chairman. A man who, when everyone else was calculating exit routes, bought shares at the collapse. Who loaned personal money to keep the legal fight alive. Who flew to Copenhagen when it mattered and stayed when it was uncomfortable. The shareholders did not elect a placeholder. They elected conviction.

And the company is no longer called Shape Robotics.

It is called **Phase Education A/S**.

---

I will not pretend I was calm this morning. I was not. I have spent the last 99 days — since the bankruptcy was declared on January 6 — fighting a war on four fronts simultaneously: legal, financial, regulatory, and public. The [High Court annulled the bankruptcy](https://substack.wildceo.live/p/game-over-day-19) on March 5. The [DFSA confirmed market abuse](https://substack.wildceo.live/p/game-over-day-34) on April 7. The EUR 14 million lawsuit against Finans.dk is pending. The criminal complaints are filed. But none of that mattered until today, because without a legitimate board, without a shareholder mandate, without the formal corporate governance structure in place, every victory existed in a vacuum. The company was alive on paper but paralyzed in practice.

That ended at 16:33 CET today.

Within hours of the vote closing, all necessary documents were transmitted to the Danish Business Authority. We expect the company to be fully registered with the new board structure by tomorrow. After that, we begin the step-by-step process of regaining access to systems, accounts, and operational control that was frozen during the 59 days of unlawful trusteeship.

The legitimacy arguments that the negative actors in this story used to obstruct us — that we had no board, no mandate, no legal standing — are finished. We have a board. We have the largest mandate in the company’s history. And we have a new name that signals exactly where we are going.

---

## What PHASE Actually Means

Many of you have been asking about Phase Education — and today at the EGM, I tried to shed some color on the painting. Because this is not a rebranding exercise. It is not a ticker change. PHASE is an educational philosophy that has been developing quietly inside everything we have built over the past five years, and it is now the organizing principle of the company.

PHASE is an acronym.

**P — Philosophy.** This is the first letter and the most important element. In 95% of K-12 curricula across Europe and the United States, philosophy is not taught as a standalone subject. It is embedded in other topics, treated as optional, or simply absent. Students graduate without ever being asked the questions that actually define a human life: What is truth? What is the purpose of existence? What is your relationship to the world you inhabit?

The old excuse was that philosophy is a luxury — something you study at home while school teaches mathematics and physics. But here is what has changed: AI is now better at mathematics and physics than most humans will ever be. The one domain where humans remain categorically superior to any machine is philosophical reasoning. The ability to process meaning. To ask why. To construct a personal framework for existence that no algorithm can replicate. Without philosophy, students will spend their lives asking AI random questions and receiving random answers without ever knowing what to do with them. PHASE puts philosophy first because without it, nothing else has direction.

**H — History.** Not the history of dates and battles memorized for an exam. The history of patterns. The translation of the present into a coherent sum of facts from the past. If you looked behind me during the live stream, most of the books on my shelf are history books. Because history, studied properly, is about understanding the logical, cohesive elements that shaped the world you woke up in this morning — and being able to look at today and recognize it as the natural output of forces that began decades or centuries ago. AI can retrieve facts. It cannot understand why they matter.

**A — Arts.** The neurological evidence is no longer debatable. Neuroplasticity is directly linked to the study of arts — music, painting, creative expression. Students who learn instruments perform measurably better in mathematics. Students who study visual arts develop cognitive flexibility that pure STEM curricula cannot produce. In a world where AI handles the computational half with increasing dominance, the creative half becomes the human competitive advantage.

**S — Sciences.** Without understanding methodology, proof, and the discipline of working with evidence, we end up in a world where a Romanian presidential candidate claims that “apocalypse” is a word derived from ancient Romanian. Where flat earth theories circulate as legitimate discourse. Where a population cannot distinguish between a peer-reviewed study and a Facebook post. PHASE does not diminish science — it contextualizes it within a broader framework that gives students the philosophical grounding to understand *why* the scientific method matters, not just how to execute it.

**E — Environment.** And this is not studying the weather. Environment, in the PHASE framework, means understanding your surroundings — your society, your geography, your economic context, your political reality. Where do you live? What forces shaped the place you call home? What is your role within it? It is situational awareness elevated to an educational principle.

---

> PHASE = Philosophy · History · Arts · Sciences · Environment. Not a rebrand. An educational operating system for the AI age. The natural evolution of everything Shape Robotics built — from Fable robots in 12,000 classrooms to an AI-integrated learning framework designed for the post-STEM era.

---

Shape Robotics — now Phase Education — has been part of this educational revolution for years. We built [Fable](https://shaperobotics.com). We deployed it across 12,000 schools. We saw STEAM succeed in some areas and fail in others. We watched AI accelerate the disruption of traditional pedagogy at a pace no existing framework was designed to handle.

Whether PHASE becomes a school system, an AI-powered curricula platform, an educational agent, or all of the above — we do not know yet. Our priorities in the last 99 days have been, to put it mildly, elsewhere. But now that we have a board, a mandate, and positive signals on the cash side — we are ready to begin the work that the name demands.

---

## What Happens Next

**Registration.** Tomorrow, the Danish Business Authority processes the filings. Phase Education A/S becomes real in the corporate registry.

**Systems access.** Step by step, we regain control of accounts, platforms, and operational infrastructure frozen during the bankruptcy. The obstructors have lost their last argument.

**Trading resumption.** We are in active dialogue with Nasdaq Copenhagen regarding the timeline for lifting the suspension. I will update you the moment there is news.

**Strategic investors.** Two investors are currently under NDA. Real capital. Real conviction. They looked at the evidence, understood the business, and decided to bet on reconstruction.

**Legal proceedings.** The [EUR 14 million defamation lawsuit](https://wildceo.live/finans-dk-sagen) against Finans.dk continues. The criminal complaints against the Carnegie pump-and-dump participants are with the authorities. The [DFSA’s formal reprimand](https://substack.wildceo.live/p/game-over-day-34) of Lars Topholm under MAR Article 20(1) provides the regulatory foundation for civil proceedings. Every piece of lost shareholder value will be fought for.

---

## To Those Who Stayed

I want to end with something personal.

To Jørgen — who has been in the chat for every single live session, who wanted to join today but was on the move and promised Thursday instead. A wild CEO even when he is moving. To Vlad, who joined late and asked the right question — that philosophy is indeed the most human of all disciplines. To Aurel, who I asked to check in when he landed, and who is now Chairman of the company he believed in when believing was expensive.

To every single shareholder who cast a vote today. Who held their shares through the worst 99 days in this company’s history. Who read every Substack post, every filing, every Day in this series, and decided: I am not leaving.

Thank you.

This company exists today because of you. Not because of the court system, though the courts did their job. Not because of the regulator, though the DFSA eventually confirmed what we had been saying for months. This company exists because a group of people — scattered across Denmark, Romania, and beyond — decided that stăruință was not just my word. It was theirs too.

---

I want to say something about timing. We are between two Easters right now. . Phase Education held its resurrection vote in the exact week between the two. I did not plan this. The court annulled the bankruptcy on March 5. The earliest possible EGM date, given notice periods and documentation requirements, fell in this window. It simply happened.

But I will not pretend it does not mean something to me. Stăruință, in the Romanian spiritual tradition, is not separate from faith. It is an expression of it. You endure because you believe the endurance has purpose. And when the timing aligns in ways you cannot engineer, you notice.

*Hristos a înviat.*

The fight is not over. The reconstruction has only begun. But tonight, for the first time in 99 days, I can say with a legitimate board behind me, a mandate from shareholders, a vision called PHASE, two strategic investors at the table, and a new name on the registry: we have everything we need to build.

---

> *”Permission is a trap. Build anyway.”*

---

Game over? No. **Game on.**

— Mark Abraham

Founder and CEO, Phase Education A/S (Nasdaq Copenhagen: SHAPE)

Day 38.

---

Every filing, every chart, every receipt. The reconstruction of Phase Education starts now.

If someone you know holds SHAPE stock — send them this. They voted for this future today.

Leave a comment

Were you at the EGM? Did you vote? Tell me your story.

---

### Go Deeper

- [Live EGM — Video + Company Announcement](https://substack.wildceo.live/p/live-egm) — The full 42-minute live stream and official resolutions

- [wildceo.live](https://wildceo.live) — The full investigation site

- [wildceo.live/egm](https://wildceo.live/egm) — EGM documentation

- [Start Here — The Wild CEO Story](https://substack.wildceo.live/p/start-here) — New to this? Begin with the data.

- [Day 34: The Regulator Agrees](https://substack.wildceo.live/p/game-over-day-34) — DFSA confirms market abuse

- [Day 37: 18 Questions](https://substack.wildceo.live/p/game-over-day-37) — The last episode before today

---

### Tags

Shape Robotics, Phase Education, EGM, GAME OVER, Day 38, Nasdaq Copenhagen, DFSA, Aurel Nețin, market abuse, bankruptcy annulled, corporate governance, shareholder rights, reconstruction, PHASE education, philosophy, STEAM, AI education, Mark Abraham, Wild CEO, stăruință, Easter

---

*April 14, 2026. Day 38. The reconstruction begins.*

Get more from Mark Abraham in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Previous episodes: Day 35: “This Is Not Negligence. This Is a Modus Operandi.” | Day 34: The Regulator Agrees | There Is No “Mild” Version of This | The Man Who Was Not Supposed to Matter | The Man Who Knew the Rules

Day 36 since the Danish High Court unanimously annulled the bankruptcy.

Five days before the EGM.

And today, for the first time since this fight began, I can tell you something I have not been able to say before: there is money on the table.

Two strategic investors. A bridge loan. And what the DFSA changed.

I cannot share names. We are under NDA and will remain so until the deal is formalised. But here is what I can tell you.

We have engaged two strategic investors. The discussions are advanced. I am, at this moment, highly confident that Shape Robotics will secure a bridge loan before the EGM next week — a loan that covers the company’s operating needs for the next one to two months while we execute the reconstruction plan and wait for the IRIS Capital facility.

Why now? Because the DFSA ruling changed everything.

Before 7 April, the Shape Robotics story had two versions. In one version — the version Finans.dk spent seventeen articles constructing — a Romanian CEO ran a company into the ground. In the other version — documented on this Substack, in company announcements, and in court filings — the company was the victim of a pump-and-dump that began with an undisclosed-conflict recommendation by the #1 analyst in the Nordics.

The DFSA confirmed the second version. In writing. In a binding decision.

And now, suddenly, everybody understands the truth of the whole story. The investors we are speaking to understand it. The legal system understands it. The only people still pretending not to understand are the ones who benefited from the first version.

The pump is confirmed. The dump is under investigation.

Let me be precise about what we now know — confirmed, not alleged — and what comes next.

Confirmed: Lars Topholm pumped the price. The DFSA has ruled that his note constituted an investment recommendation under EU law, distributed through Carnegie’s official channels to professional traders and external investors, while he held undisclosed shares. That is the pump. It is no longer disputed. It is a regulatory finding.

Under investigation: The dump — the coordinated selling of approximately 532,000 shares by Topholm’s network between 24 April and 4 June 2024, extracting approximately DKK 21 million at peak prices — is a separate matter. The pump is an administrative violation handled by the DFSA. The dump, if proven, is a criminal matter handled by SØIK (Statsadvokaten for Særlig Økonomisk og International Kriminalitet) — Denmark’s Special Prosecutor for Serious Economic and International Crime.

I have indications — not confirmation, but indications — that the parties involved are being examined.

The inception of the mechanism has been confirmed. The rest will follow.

The door is open for shareholder claims

This is the part I need every shareholder reading this to understand clearly.

The DFSA decision does not just validate Shape Robotics’ corporate complaint. It opens a separate door — for you. Directly.

There are two distinct claims arising from this case:

The corporate claim: Shape Robotics vs. Carnegie Investment Bank. Institutional liability for the conduct of its Managing Director. Loss of market trust, triggered insolvency, loss of contracts in Poland and Romania, destruction of shareholder value. This claim will be initiated by the new board after the EGM on 14 April, led by Alexandru Ambrozie.

The shareholder claim: Individual investors who bought Shape Robotics shares during the pump period — at prices inflated by Carnegie’s undisclosed-conflict recommendation — and who lost money during the subsequent collapse, have a direct civil claim against Carnegie and Topholm. This claim is yours. It is separate from the company’s claim. The company cannot file it for you.

If you bought Shape Robotics shares at or near the DKK 35–52 range during the March–April 2024 period, and you are still holding — or you sold at a loss — you have standing.

A class action or coordinated civil suit should be explored. The DFSA ruling provides the evidentiary foundation. A Danish litigation specialist in securities law can advise on next steps.

The door is open. The regulatory confirmation is in hand. The question is whether shareholders will walk through it.

EGM: four days out

Everything goes as planned.

We have received a significant number of proxy votes. All positive. At this moment, there is no indication that the EGM on 14 April 2026 will not proceed as intended.

The agenda remains:

1. New board elected — Aurel Nețin, Kim Okkola, Alexandru Ambrozie

2. New PIE-approved auditor appointed

3. 100 million shares authorised for IRIS Capital equity line

4. Phase Education A/S confirmed as operational subsidiary

5. Reconstruction plan filed immediately after

If you have not voted yet — vote. The number of shares is irrelevant. What matters is the number of shareholders supporting the cause. Every vote transfers legitimate power to the board. And a board with legitimate power is a very different animal from a CEO sending emails that can be ignored.

Vote at phase.education/egm.

The AI agent is live

One more thing.

I’ve been building something on the side — a project born from the same frustration that drives this Substack: the impossibility of answering the same questions a hundred times a day across five platforms.

There is now a WildCEO AI agent live at wildceo.live.

It has been trained on the full archive — company announcements, court filings, Substack episodes, financial documents, board materials. It is not a generic chatbot. It is a model trained specifically on the Shape Robotics case. Ask it about the DFSA ruling. Ask it about the timeline. Ask it about the claims. Ask it about the EGM.

It will get smarter over time. For now, it knows more about this case than most journalists who have written about it.

Try it. Break it. Tell me what’s missing.

What happens next

11 April — Nasdaq trading resumption demanded. If not: MAR complaint escalation.

14 April — EGM. New board. New auditor. Capital authorisation. The reconstruction begins.

15 April — Reconstruction plan filed. 27% haircut, 80% debt-to-equity, 20% cash over 18 months. 83% friendly creditors.

Post-EGM — Board initiates formal civil proceedings against Carnegie and Lars Topholm. Shareholder claims coordination begins.

This is the last daily episode before Easter. Orthodox Good Friday is tomorrow. I will take a breath — the first in 36 days. We reconvene Tuesday.

If anything develops over the weekend, you will know. Follow the channel. I will post it.

Leave a comment

One more thing

I believe in something that may sound strange coming from a CEO of a publicly listed company: I believe the intermediary institutions — the analysts, the brokers, the financial press — are becoming obsolete.

Not because they are bad at what they do. Some of them are excellent. But because the platforms we are using right now — Substack, Bluesky, livestreams, AI agents — allow a direct, unmediated dialogue between a company and its shareholders that no institution can replicate, filter, or distort.

For 36 days, I have spoken to you directly. Every day. Without a press office, without a communications consultant, without a compliance review of what I’m allowed to say. I have told you everything I know, the moment I know it. And you have responded — with votes, with bridge financing leads, with legal expertise, with moral support that kept this fight alive through days when I wondered if it mattered.

It matters. It has always mattered.

The theory of perfect markets assumes perfect information. For the first time, we are close to that.

Happy Easter to the Orthodox among you. Happy Passover to those celebrating. And to everyone else: see you Tuesday.

Q.E.D.

The documents

• Finanstilsynet decision, 7 April 2026 — finanstilsynet.dk

• Company Announcement No. 10-26 — Cision

• EGM — 14 April 2026 — phase.education/egm

• FundShape bridge financing — fundshape.phase.education

• WildCEO AI Agent — wildceo.live

• There Is No “Mild” Version of This — Substack

• The Myth of Danish Purity — Substack

GAME OVER | Day 36 — Subscribe at substack.wildceo.live for real-time updates as this case unfolds.

Shape Robotics A/S | CVR DK38322656 | Nasdaq: SHAPE | ISIN: DK0061273125

Mark-Robert Abraham, CEO — Vesterbrogade 74, 1620 Copenhagen V, Denmark

Get more from Mark Abraham in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

What you’re about to watch

One day after the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority confirmed that Lars Topholm violated EU market abuse law, I sat down with Alexandru Ambrozie — board candidate for Shape Robotics, capital markets expert, and the man who will lead recovery proceedings against Carnegie — to dissect the decision word by word.

We didn’t summarise. We didn’t editorialize. We read the Finanstilsynet ruling aloud, line by line, and explained what each sentence means for Shape Robotics, for Carnegie, for 4,800 shareholders, and for the Danish financial market.

If you’ve read the articles, watch this conversation. It adds three things the written word cannot: Alex’s professional assessment that this is a first in Danish market history, the real-time Q&A with shareholders, and the moment we both arrive at the same conclusion — independently, on camera — about what happens next.

Timestamps

00:00 — Introduction with Alexandru Ambrozie

02:00 — The DFSA decision: “crystal clear case of market manipulation with two arms”

04:25 — Why the fine doesn’t matter: “This is about trust, not money”

06:36 — The DFSA qualified the note as a financial recommendation — what that means

07:00 — “He is not a rookie. This is the big boss.”

07:42 — “Back of the envelope” — Alex: “I don’t know why this should be considered an element”

08:09 — “He didn’t send it to his friends in high school. He sent it to professional traders.”

09:00 — Reading the decision: “The note is capable of influencing the recipient’s attitude”

10:40 — The capacity to influence vs. actual effect — why the DFSA dismissed price impact

12:28 — The general analogy: “You are a general and you start shooting on the street and say this is just a test”

14:16 — “It makes it not negligence” — the 3,500 shares proving intent

14:58 — The critical question: did he do it for himself or for a broader group?

16:05 — The trifecta: incompetent, expired, or corrupt — and why all three lead to the same place

17:08 — “This is not negligence. This is a modus operandi.”

17:30 — Carnegie’s institutional liability: “He engaged the legal entity. The bank.”

18:20 — Alex: “I haven’t seen managing directors sending drafts to professional traders. This is a first.”

19:24 — The DFSA’s final guidance: format and designation are immaterial

20:31 — Shape Robotics vs. Carnegie — “Lars Topholm doesn’t exist outside Carnegie”

22:00 — The trading history problem: why the pump-and-dump poisons future investment

22:40 — The DFSA ruling as evidence for the board negligence claim

23:00 — “People are starting to realize that you are right”

24:12 — “This is very fast. Surprisingly fast.” — speed of the Danish system

25:17 — Post-EGM action plan: contacting Carnegie and DNB

27:06 — “We received a valid confirmation from a governmental institution that is not appealable”

27:38 — “It cannot be considered mild. This is huge. By comparison, there was never such a case before in Denmark.”

28:00 — Q&A: Can retail investors file their own claims?

30:00 — Q&A: Can small investors still make money from stocks?

34:35 — “The investor who bought and lost” — the basis for shareholder civil claims

Five things you need to take from this conversation

1. The DFSA decision is not about the penalty — it is the proof.

Alexandru Ambrozie puts it plainly: “For investors, this is a matter of trust or losing trust and not about the fine. A fine goes to the state. We don’t really care about if he pays or not a certain fine.”

The reprimand is not the punishment. The reprimand is the government-stamped, non-appealable confirmation that the starting act of the pump-and-dump was a violation of EU law. That confirmation is the foundation for everything that comes next.

2. A Managing Director of Carnegie cannot claim this was a mistake.

“He is not a rookie. He is not an unexperienced advisor who has drafts and internal notes that have to be approved by a supervisor. This is the big boss.” — Alexandru Ambrozie

Alex makes the point that changes the entire framing: when the Head of Research at Carnegie — the person who is the compliance supervision — breaks the most basic disclosure rule, the “accident” defence collapses. There is nobody above him to catch the error. Which means there was no error to catch.

3. The general does not get to say “this was just a test.”

The analogy Alex uses in the conversation is devastating: imagine a general who starts shooting on the street and then says it was just a test. Would you believe him? Would anyone? When the #1 analyst in the Nordics sends a bullish note through Carnegie’s official channels to professional traders, the note carries the full authority of his position and his institution. Calling it “back of the envelope” afterward is the general saying “I was just testing.”

4. Shape Robotics’ claim is against Carnegie — not against Topholm personally.

“Shape Robotics has a matter with Carnegie. Our representative caused, determined, and basically started this whole pump and dump, which ultimately led to the insolvency.” — Alexandru Ambrozie

This is the institutional liability argument. Topholm used Carnegie’s branding, Carnegie’s channels, Carnegie’s sales team, Carnegie’s contact details. He signed the note as “Lars Topholm, Head of Research, Carnegie Investment Bank.” Carnegie’s compliance systems either failed to detect it or allowed it. Either way, the institution bears responsibility.

5. Shareholders may have their own civil claims — separate from Shape Robotics.

Alex identifies two distinct tracks: Shape Robotics’ corporate claim against Carnegie (loss of trust, triggered insolvency, lost contracts in Poland and Romania), and a separate, direct claim by individual shareholders who bought during the pump period and lost money during the dump. The DFSA decision provides the evidentiary basis for both.

The line that ends the debate

Near the end of the conversation, I asked Alex whether this should be considered “mild” — the word Finans.dk used in its coverage.

His answer:

“It cannot be considered mild. This is huge. And by comparison, there was never such a case before in Denmark. Never.”

A capital markets expert with decades of experience across multiple European jurisdictions. His professional assessment: unprecedented.

The media can frame it however they want. The DFSA decision is what it is: a non-appealable, definitive governmental finding that the #1 analyst in the Nordics violated EU market abuse law. That is not mild. That is a confirmation.

Q.E.D.

Read the full written investigation

📄 There Is No “Mild” Version of This → — The complete article dissecting the Finanstilsynet decision, the Carnegie note, the timeline from note to bankruptcy, and the DKK 22 million extraction by Topholm’s network.

📄 GAME OVER | Day 34: The Regulator Agrees → — Yesterday’s episode on the moment the decision was published.

The documents

• Finanstilsynet decision, 7 April 2026 — finanstilsynet.dk

• Shape Robotics Company Announcement No. 10-26 — Cision

• The Myth of Danish Purity — WildCEO Substack

• EGM — 14 April 2026 — phase.education/egm

GAME OVER | Day 35 — Subscribe at substack.wildceo.live for real-time updates as this case unfolds.

Shape Robotics A/S | CVR DK38322656 | Nasdaq: SHAPE | ISIN: DK0061273125

Mark-Robert Abraham, CEO — Vesterbrogade 74, 1620 Copenhagen V, Denmark

Get more from Mark Abraham in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app