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And today the DFSA wrote to tell me that the complaint has been withdrawn — by the liquidator of Shape Robotics A/S.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WITHDRAWN on behalf of the Company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Regulatory consequence: Complaint closed as withdrawn by the Company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:
Shape Robotics (Phase Education A/S) has zero debt. All claims have been satisfied by assignment of litigation rights.
Existing shareholders keep the great majority of their equity. Minimal issuance — only what is strictly needed to fund the litigation machine and restart operations.
The creditors are made whole from the responsible parties, not from the shareholders who had nothing to do with the destruction.
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.
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.
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.
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.
