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.
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.
Petition 2 — Treyd AB: Case K-337/25. ~DKK 3.9M. Swedish fintech trade credit claim.
Petition 3 — Interlex / Eduard Munoz: Case K-18/26. DKK 267,556. Employee wages claim.
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.
Petition 6 — Kromann Reumert / Danske Bank + EIFO: Case K-653/26. Duplicate of Petition 5.
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.
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.
