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.
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.
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.
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.
🏷️ #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.
