Previous episodes: Day 49: The Pre-Appointed | Day 48: The Email Viktor Sent Only to Me | Day 47: The Reconstruction the Liquidator Refused
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.
