For shareholders who prefer not to comment publicly in the chat, the same five fields are available in a private Google Form: https://forms.gle/qnTcuCgAYmmU9pdLA — your name still appears in the petition annex but your email and shares stay private.
Previous episodes: Day 50: Zero Practice · Day 49: The Pre-Appointed · Day 35: This Is Not Negligence · The Man Who Knew the Rules · Q.E.D. — How Three Judges Proved What One CEO Kept Saying
Fifty-one days into a war I didn’t start.
Today the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority — Finanstilsynet, J.nr. 25-026876 — wrote to me twice. Not a press release. Not a leak. Two formal email replies from Viktor Stidsen Katic, Legal Officer in the Capital Market Division, in the same regulatory case file.
I’m going to walk you through both emails. Then I’m going to show you what they mean for Teis Gullitz-Wormslev, partner at Kromann Reumert, court-appointed likvidator of Shape Robotics A/S. And then I’m going to ask you — as a shareholder — to sign your name to a petition that goes to Finanstilsynet and Københavns Politi on Monday morning.
Jørgen Andreas Berg leads. Bo coordinates the in-person presence at Sø- og Handelsretten on 11 May. The documents are ready. We need the signatures.
📨 At 10:41 CET, the regulator answered the question I had been asking for months
The first email arrived this morning. One sentence:
“As long as the company has shares admitted to trading on Nasdaq Copenhagen, the requirements in the Market Abuse Regulation still apply to the company.”
— Viktor Stidsen Katic, Legal Officer, Capital Market Division, Finanstilsynet, 27 April 2026 at 10:41 CET, in J.nr. 25-026876.
That sentence, in writing, in a numbered case, from the legal officer of Finanstilsynet’s Capital Market Division.
I’ve been writing about MAR Article 17 since January. I’ve cited it in fourteen episodes. I’ve named the four parallel kurator cases — Odico, Seluxit, Audientes, SPARK — where other lawyers from other firms understood the obligation and complied. I’ve shown you Teis’s own SBS announcement from 2024 where he himself complied with MAR Article 17 over a DKK 0.30 share-class change, while ten months later writing DKK 199 million to zero in silence for 59 days as kurator.
Today, for the first time, the regulator confirmed — in writing, in a numbered case file — that the obligation applies. To this company. While suspended. Right now.
⚡ Then I asked the harder question. The reply at 14:27 closed the last door
I read Viktor’s first email. The man gave me a small finger to help. I took the whole hand.
So I wrote back. Four minutes later. Devil’s advocate question — the one Teis or his defenders would inevitably raise:
“As the shares are suspended for trading, is this equivalent to not admitted to trading? Or how should we read your response? As long as we are listed on Nasdaq we need to follow MAR, even if trading is suspended due to liquidation or rekonstruktion or bankruptcy or any other event?”
Four hours later. Same case file. Same legal officer.
“The issuer’s obligations under MAR continue to apply regardless of any suspension and the reason behind it.”
— Viktor Stidsen Katic, Legal Officer, Capital Market Division, Finanstilsynet, 27 April 2026 at 14:27 CET, in J.nr. 25-026876.
Read that sentence twice. Then a third time. In those eleven words, the regulator just dismantled every excuse Teis Gullitz-Wormslev or anyone else at Kromann Reumert could possibly have offered.
Suspension does not lift it. The reason for suspension does not lift it. Tvangsopløsning does not lift it. Konkurs does not lift it. Rekonstruktion does not lift it. Any other event does not lift it.
The MAR obligation belongs to whoever is the issuer’s competent organ at any given moment. Since 17 April 2026 at the Skifteret hearing, that organ is Teis. He is the issuer. He is the one MAR Article 17 binds.
🎯 The scoreboard: 59 days as kurator, 10+ days as likvidator
Two roles. One pattern. Same advokat. Same selskab. Same conduct.
Period Capacity Days MAR-meddelelser published 6 Jan – 5 Mar 2026 Kurator (annulled bankruptcy estate) 59 ✕ Zero 17 Apr 2026 – present Likvidator (compulsory dissolution) 10+ ✕ Zero
In the first period, Teis was simultaneously running a compulsory bankruptcy administration and a parallel set of court appointments. Asset valuations happened. Creditor negotiations happened. EIFO contacts happened. Nasdaq Surveillance correspondence happened. He published nothing on Cision, nothing on Globe Newswire, nothing on any regulated information service.
That period is already under DFSA investigation in J.nr. 25-026876.
In the second period — the one that started ten days ago — eleven discrete price-sensitive events have arisen within the company’s sphere. Eleven events that, individually, any compliance officer at any listed company in Europe would file as Inside Information under MAR Article 7.
Events undisclosed by the likvidator (17–27 April 2026):
✕ The tvangsopløsningskendelse itself (17 April) ✕ His own appointment as likvidator (17 April) ✕ The kæreskrift to Østre Landsret, case SK-524/2026-SHR (21 April) ✕ The reconstruction petition with 62.1% creditor majority (21 April) ✕ Retsassessor Degnbol’s letter with four procedural admissions (22 April) ✕ His own request to Finanstilsynet to drop the MAR case J.nr. 25-026876 against himself as former kurator (22 April) ✕ The scheduling of the rekonstruktion hearing at Sø- og Handelsretten, 11 May 2026 at 09:30 (23 April) ✕ The fogedretten decision FS M4-2715/2026 on the Pasat veksel (27 April) ✕ The Carnegie civil claim status ✕ The two Finanstilsynet written confirmations themselves (27 April) ✕ The shareholders’ petition being filed Monday 4 May 2026
Eleven events in ten days. Zero meddelelser.
The first period was a pattern. The second period — same advokat, same selskab, same conduct — is a method.
⚖️ Why this is not negligence — and why § 247 matters
Lov om kapitalmarkeder § 247 makes forsætlig overtrædelse of MAR Article 17 a criminal offence. Bøde or fængsel up to one year and six months. Grov uagtsomhed — gross negligence — falls in the same range with a slightly lower threshold.
Forsætligheden — the intentionality — rests on three facts that together close the door.
🔑 Proof One. He is a fast-kurator-advokat at Kromann Reumert.
Partner since 2014. Holds a fast-kurator seat at Sø- og Handelsretten since 2024, succeeding Marianne Philip. Børsret and selskabsret are foundational competencies for his profession. He cannot claim ignorance of MAR Article 17 — he has applied it himself, in his own SBS likvidation, ten months before he became Shape Robotics’ kurator. There exists, on Globe Newswire, a Nasdaq announcement signed
two@kromannreumert.comthat classifies a DKK 0.30 share-class adjustment as Inside Information.Teis Gullitz-Wormslev is
two.🔑 Proof Two. He has done the same thing twice.
Same advokat. Same selskab. Same omission. First 59 days as kurator. Now 10+ days as likvidator. A single omission, perhaps, can be negligence. A repeated, identical pattern across two separate court appointments — for the same listed company, with the same shareholder body, with the same reporting infrastructure — is not.
🔑 Proof Three. He asked Finanstilsynet to drop the case against himself.
On 22 April 2026, Teis as likvidator wrote to Finanstilsynet asking the regulator to drop the MAR case J.nr. 25-026876 against himself as former kurator. That request is the single piece of evidence that closes the door on any negligence defence.
He knew. He continued anyway. § 247.
The chain is complete. He knew. He continued. The regulator just confirmed the obligation today. In writing. Twice.
✊ The shareholders’ petition
I am one shareholder. The petition is stronger if it comes from many. The court hearing on the rekonstruktion is on 11 May 2026 at 09:30 at Sø- og Handelsretten. We have five days to collect signatures and file Monday morning.
Two documents are ready. Both bilingual DA/EN. Both two pages. Both written so any shareholder reads them in five minutes.
📄 Document 1 — Aktionær-petition til Finanstilsynet Asks the regulator to consolidate this petition with the existing cases J.nr. 25-026876 and J.nr. 26-005434, to issue formal påtale, to assess bødestraf under § 248, and to forward the file to Advokatnævnet — the Disciplinary Board of the Bar.
📄 Document 2 — Aktionær-politianmeldelse til Københavns Politi A criminal complaint under lov om kapitalmarkeder § 247. Requests consolidation with the existing case 0100-83986-10362-26 against Teis (filed in March), the opening of investigation, and assessment for SØIK escalation — the Special Prosecutor for Serious Economic and International Crime.
Both PDFs are attached at the bottom of this dispatch.
🎯 Lead complainant: Jørgen Andreas Berg. Shareholder. He has my full trust. He coordinates the petition thread on Substack chat. Reach him directly at joergen.andreas.berg@gmail.com.
🏛️ Bo coordinates the in-person presence at Sø- og Handelsretten on 11 May 2026 at 09:30. If you are in Copenhagen that morning — be there. The court reads attendance as a signal of seriousness.
🎓 Jørgen also coordinates the academic expert opinion — a written statement from a professor of capital markets law at a Danish university, to be attached as a third document supporting the petitions. If you are connected to the legal academic community in Denmark, write to him.
📝 How to sign — the embedded petition
Substack does not allow custom embedded forms in posts. So we are using two parallel channels that work:
➡️ Primary: The Wild CEO chat thread
The signature thread is open in the Wild CEO Substack chat. Click the chat icon at the top of this post, find the thread titled “Shareholders’ Petition — Sign Here”, and reply with these five fields as a single message:
Full name
Country of residence
Approximate number of Shape Robotics shares held or formerly held
Confirmation: “I support the shareholders’ petition and authorize my name to be added to the list filed with Finanstilsynet and Københavns Politi.”
Jørgen co-manages the thread. He will compile the list daily and add to the official annex of both petitions.
➡️ Secondary: The Google Form
For shareholders who prefer not to comment publicly in the chat, the same five fields are available in a private Google Form: https://forms.gle/qnTcuCgAYmmU9pdLA — your name still appears in the petition annex but your email and shares stay private.
🗓️ Deadline: Saturday 2 May 2026, 23:59 CET.
🚀 Filing: Monday 4 May 2026, morning. Finanstilsynet, Københavns Politi, with copies to Sø- og Handelsretten, Østre Landsret, Erhvervsstyrelsen, Advokatnævnet.
🔚 Closing
This is not personal. I have nothing personal against Teis Gullitz-Wormslev as a man. I have something procedural against him as a court-appointed officer who is, by the regulator’s own written admission today, in continuing breach of the law that protects 4,800 shareholders in 17 countries.
The regulator told us. Twice. Today. In writing. Same case file. Four hours apart.
If a partner at Denmark’s largest law firm, holding a fast-kurator seat at Sø- og Handelsretten, can ignore MAR Article 17 for 59 days as kurator and then again for 10+ days as likvidator while the regulator confirms in writing that the obligation applies — and the system does nothing — then there is no listed-company law in Denmark. Not for us. Not for any of the 4,800. Not for any future Nasdaq Copenhagen issuer.
We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for the law to apply to the person who is, right now, supposed to enforce it.
Sign. Forward to other shareholders. Be in the chat. Be at the court on 11 May.
Q.E.D.
Mark-Robert Abraham · Founder and former CEO, Shape Robotics A/S · 27 April 2026 · Day 51
Lead complainant on the shareholders’ petition: Jørgen Andreas Berg · joergen.andreas.berg@gmail.com
📎 Documentation attached at the bottom of this post: (1) Aktionær-petition til Finanstilsynet — bilingual DA/EN — 2 pages (2) Aktionær-politianmeldelse til Københavns Politi — bilingual DA/EN — 2 pages
🤖 Wild CEO AI agent — trained on the full case archive — at wildceo.live. Ask it anything.
🏷️ #ShapeRobotics #PhaseEducation #NasdaqCopenhagen #SHAPE #MAR #Article17 #Finanstilsynet #DFSA #SøOgHandelsretten #ØstreLandsret #KromannReumert #TeisGullitzWormslev #Tvangsopløsning #Likvidator #Konkursloven #CapitalMarketsAct #Paragraf247 #Advokatnævnet #SØIK #ShareholderPetition #JørgenAndreasBerg #WildCEO #GameOver #Day51
