Previous episodes: Day 52: The Counterattack · Day 51: The Email That Confirms It · Day 50: Zero Practice · Day 49: The Pre-Appointed · Day 35: This Is Not Negligence
Fifty-three days into a war I didn’t start.
This morning I sat down to do my daily livestream. While I was waiting for the broadcast to stabilize, I opened Nasdaq’s investor forum and saw hundreds of comments. Two camps. People defending the trustee. People defending me. Both sides certain. Both sides shouting.
Then a message from Bo. “Mark, you’re on the front of Børsen.” I went to look. There was my photo, with sunglasses, next to a picture of a small piece of paper — the omstridte gældsbrev, the disputed promissory note, denominated in RON 147,967,781 — approximately DKK 217 million.
The headline: “Dødsstød eller slette al gæld?” — Death blow or wipe out all debt?
So today’s episode is about the only thing that actually matters. The thing both Børsen’s article and the Nasdaq forum and the trustee’s letter all dance around without ever naming.
Independence.
Neither I am independent. Neither is the liquidator. The Danish business press isn’t independent — Finans is paid by Carnegie and Danske Bank. Børsen, today, by its own choice of which questions to ask and which to skip, isn’t independent either.
The only path forward is to put an independent reconstructor — Philip Borreschmidt of Mazanti-Andersen — at the head of the company on 11 May. That is the entire argument of this dispatch. Everything else is noise.
🎯 The independence problem — stated cleanly
Let me put this in a way that no one in this case has yet stated cleanly. So I will.
I am not independent. I am the founder. I am personally guarantor on the Pasat aval. My partner is the largest disputed creditor. My father’s company is another disputed creditor. I have skin in this game in every direction. Anything I say about Shape Robotics is filtered through my own interest in seeing it survive. You should not take my word as the source of truth. I never asked you to. I publish the documents. I let you see them. I tell you what I think they mean. Then you decide.
Teis Gullitz-Wormslev is not independent. Six minutes before he was appointed kurator on 6 January 2026 at the Sø- og Handelsretten, he stood in the same courtroom as counsel for Danske Bank and EIFO. He was the lawyer of the largest creditor. He became the trustee of the company that owes that creditor money. The conflict was visible. It was on the retsbog. Then he was appointed liquidator a second time on 17 April 2026 by the same court — same conflict, same partner at Kromann Reumert.
The Danish business press is not independent. Finans is funded by parties with positions in this case. Børsen — let me be more careful here, because today’s article is more nuanced than yesterday’s letter from the liquidator — but Børsen has, by which questions it asked and which it didn’t ask, framed the case from one direction.
You cannot fix a problem of independence by adding more dependent voices on either side. You fix it by introducing a fully independent third party who has no relationship with the bank, with me, with Shape Robotics, with Danske Bank, with EIFO, with anyone in this matter.
That is what reconstruction is, structurally. A court-appointed independent professional steps in, takes over the company, and tries to find a survival path that is fair to all creditors. Philip Borreschmidt of Mazanti-Andersen is one of Denmark’s most respected reconstruction practitioners. He has no prior relationship with this case.
That is the choice on 11 May 2026 at 09:30 at Sø- og Handelsretten.
📰 The Børsen article — what it asked, what it didn’t ask, and what it accidentally proved
Børsen’s article ran today, 29 April 2026 at 17:00 CET, under the byline of four journalists — Johan Christensen, Kasper Ohmeyer, Simon Kirketerp, and Leonora Beck. Headline: “Dødsstød eller slette al gæld? Ét gældsbrev på 217 mio. kr. kan ændre alt i Shape Robotics.”
Let me deconstruct it the way I deconstruct any document — by what it includes, what it excludes, and what conclusions follow whether the author intended them or not.
What the article includes
✓ The factual chronology — January bankruptcy, March annulment, April compulsory dissolution, the upcoming 11 May hearing
✓ The promissory note in question — RON 147,967,781 (~DKK 217 million), issued December 2022 by Shape Robotics SRL to Elena Pasat, with aval by Shape Robotics A/S, signed by then-CEO André Fehrn, reissued in 2025
✓ The reconstruction proposal — tvangsakkord at 99.99%, requiring 60% of voting creditor mass
✓ The arithmetic — Elena’s claim DKK 217M + Moby Industries DKK 45M = 62.2% of voting creditor mass — sufficient for the tvangsakkord
✓ André Fehrn’s own statement that he signed the note understanding Shape A/S would guarantee the underlying debt to the extent owed
✓ The fogedretten kendelse of 27 April 2026 (FS M4-2715/2026)
✓ Mark Abraham’s position that the validity of the cambial instrument is determined under Romanian law, not Danish law
What the article excludes
✕ The Finanstilsynet’s two written confirmations of 27 April 2026 (J.nr. 25-026876) — that MAR Article 17 obligations apply to Shape Robotics regardless of suspension or its reason — even though Børsen’s reporters were aware of these confirmations through public announcements
✕ The Sanako Oy bankruptcy of 5 February 2026 — a material balance sheet event of approximately DKK 95M that the trustee did not announce to the market while in office
✕ The fact that the same liquidator who today characterizes the Pasat note as “unusual” failed to publish a single MAR-meddelelse on Cision/Globe Newswire/Nasdaq during 59 days as kurator and 11+ days now as likvidator
✕ The fact that the liquidator’s letter of 28 April 2026 was sent exactly 24 hours after the regulator confirmed the MAR obligation in writing
✕ The fact that the liquidator simultaneously refuses to activate the company’s own D&O insurance with TopDanmark while claiming damages of potentially hundreds of millions against former management
✕ The Geneva Convention 1930, transposed into Danish Vekselloven and Romanian Legea 58/1934, which determines that an aval signed in Romania on a Romanian instrument is governed by Romanian cambial law
✕ The doctrine of apparent authority (in Danish law: fuldmagtsregler under Aftaleloven; in Romanian law: mandat aparent) which protects third-party beneficiaries acting in good faith
✕ The fact that the 2025 reconfirmation of the original 2022 instrument constitutes ratification of any prior signature concern
What the article accidentally proves
Read the article carefully. Not what it says — what it shows.
It admits, on its own face, that Elena Pasat and Moby Industries together represent 62.2% of the voting creditor mass. By the article’s own arithmetic, the reconstruction with a tvangsakkord at 99.99% has the votes.
It admits that the liquidator’s strategy is to invalidate the Pasat aval not by going to Romania to challenge the cambial instrument under Romanian law, but by arguing in Denmark that André Fehrn lacked authority to sign — an argument that, under Geneva 1930 Article 4 and Vekselloven §93-94, simply does not apply to the validity of a Romanian-signed cambial instrument.
It admits that the liquidator has already used the same “lacked authority” argument to reject the Moby Industries claim — meaning he is choosing which related-party claims to reject and which to investigate, even though both relate to the same signing officer’s same authority.
It admits that André Fehrn, the signatory, confirms he intended to bind Shape A/S to the underlying debt. “Han anerkender dermed, at han har forpligtet det børsnoterede danske selskab til at betale Elena Pasat det beløb, hun kontraktuelt måtte have krav på at få fra det rumænske datterselskab, når dette ikke kan betale.”
It admits, in the most important sentence in the entire article, that if the reconstruction proceeds on 11 May with Mazanti-Andersen as reconstructor, the case is decided by an independent professional — not by me, not by the liquidator, not by the press.
That last admission is the entire game. Børsen wrote four pages, included photos of my face, framed me as the suspicious actor — and at the end of the article confirmed that the path forward I am proposing is exactly the path that gives the answer to a neutral observer.
⚖️ The two arguments that decide everything on 11 May
There are only two real arguments in this case. Both have to be settled by an independent professional. Neither can be settled by me, by the liquidator, by Børsen, or by Nasdaq forum commenters.
🔵 Argument One — Reconstruction or bankruptcy?
If the reconstruction is approved on 11 May with the 62.2% creditor mass voting in favor, an independent reconstructor (Mazanti-Andersen’s Philip Borreschmidt) takes over. He examines all the questions: Are the related-party guarantees commercially justified? Is the company viable? Is there a survival path? He decides, not me, not Teis.
If the reconstruction is rejected on 11 May, the company moves into liquidation under Teis. He continues as the same conflicted liquidator who is the bank’s former counsel. He decides which creditors get paid and which don’t. He decides whether to pursue claims against former management. He decides everything from inside the same conflict that has tainted every step of this case.
🔴 Argument Two — Romanian cambial substance or Danish procedural form?
The Pasat promissory note is governed by Romanian cambial law — that is the Geneva Convention 1930 conflict-of-laws rule, Article 4, transposed into Danish law via Vekselloven §93-94. The avalist’s obligation is autonomous and abstract. The validity of the instrument is verified per facie. The two channels for contesting it (cambial action under Article 19 of Romanian Law 58/1934, and opposition to enforcement under Article 62) lie in Romanian courts, with limitation periods that have expired.
The liquidator’s argument, as reported by Børsen, is that André Fehrn lacked solo signing authority under Shape Robotics A/S’ tegningsregler. That is a Danish corporate law argument. It does not survive contact with Romanian cambial substance. The doctrine of apparent authority protects the third-party beneficiary. The 2025 reconfirmation ratifies any prior defect. And the limitation period for contesting cambial signatures is six months — exhausted in 2023.
An independent reconstructor will recognize this immediately. A conflicted liquidator who is the bank’s lawyer will not.
🔍 What is missing from the conversation — entirely
Notice what nobody is talking about today.
The Danish FSA’s two written confirmations of 27 April 2026 in J.nr. 25-026876, sent four hours apart, that close every conceivable defense the liquidator could otherwise advance. Nobody at Børsen mentioned them.
The bankruptcy of Sanako Oy on 5 February 2026 — a material balance sheet event of approximately DKK 95M that the trustee did not announce while he was the only legally authorized organ to do so. Nobody at Børsen mentioned it.
The liquidator’s request to the regulator on 22 April 2026 to drop the MAR case J.nr. 25-026876 against himself as former trustee — five days after he was appointed liquidator a second time. Nobody at Børsen mentioned it.
The 11 events undisclosed in 11 days as liquidator. Nobody at Børsen mentioned them.
The supplementary complaint filed today, 29 April 2026, with Finanstilsynet, expanded with these very events plus the side-by-side hypocrisy table showing the liquidator accusing me of MAR breaches the same day the regulator confirmed he himself commits them daily. Nobody at Børsen mentioned it.
That is what an article framed by one camp’s questions looks like. It is not dishonest. It is selective. And in this case the selection systematically favors one side of a two-sided dispute that, by the article’s own admission at the end, requires an independent third party to resolve.
✊ The independence proposal — what to ask the court on 11 May
If you are a shareholder. If you are a creditor with voting rights. If you are watching this case as a journalist or as a regulator. The proposal is the same:
🏛️ Allow Mazanti-Andersen to take over.
Approve the reconstruction on 11 May 2026 at 09:30 at Sø- og Handelsretten. Place the company under the control of Philip Borreschmidt and Mazanti-Andersen. Have him examine the substance of the disputes — the Pasat aval, the Moby claim, the Windaco transactions, the Sanako acquisition, all of it — under independent professional standards.
If he confirms the reconstruction is viable, the company survives. If he confirms certain claims are not commercially justified, those claims are reduced or rejected by an independent process. The 4,800 shareholders in 17 countries get a real recovery, not a wind-down distributing what little is left after liquidator fees.
If he confirms I am wrong about anything, I accept that. I will pay for any mistakes I made. I am not going to disappear because the liquidator says so. But I am also not afraid of an independent assessment. I am inviting it.
The shareholders’ petition being filed at Finanstilsynet and Københavns Politi on Monday 4 May, with Jørgen Andreas Berg as lead complainant, is the parallel track. The court hearing on 11 May is the structural decision. Both matter. Both reinforce the same outcome — the law applies equally, the regulator enforces equally, and the company is examined independently.
📝 The signing channels — open all weekend
➡️ Primary: Wild CEO Substack chat thread
The signature thread is open in the Wild CEO Substack chat — “Shareholders’ Petition — Sign Here”. Reply with the five fields: full name, country, approximate shareholding, email, and the confirmation line. Jørgen co-manages the thread.
➡️ Secondary: Google Form
For shareholders preferring privacy, the Google Form link is pinned in the chat thread. Same five fields, private email and shareholding.
🗓️ 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 🏛️ Court: Sunday 11 May 2026, 09:30 — Sø- og Handelsretten — Bo coordinates in-person attendance
🔚 Closing
This morning my sixteen-year-old daughter Victoria came on screen for thirty seconds. She had just walked out of her IGCSE Mathematics Paper 2 exam — and she had aced it. Full marks. She said hello to everyone watching. Then she went back to her day.
Tomorrow she has another exam. The day after, another. The 11 May court hearing happens. The petition gets filed Monday. The shareholders sign or they don’t sign. Mazanti-Andersen takes over or they don’t. Independence wins or it loses.
I am not asking you to trust me. I am asking you to trust an independent process. Run by an independent reconstructor. Examined by an independent regulator. Decided by independent judges.
That is the whole argument. Everything else is noise.
We did the hard part. We cleaned house. The investors are waiting. We proved a small company can fight back on the stock exchange. The rest — the noise about who is right and who is wrong — that is for an independent professional to sort out, not for the press to decide.
I do not have to come back as CEO. If reconstruction goes through, I can step aside. Someone else can carry the torch with zero debt and a clean balance sheet from day one.
Just put an independent person at the head of the company on 11 May. Let the noise die down. Let the truth speak through documents and through a process that is not corrupted by anyone’s prior conflict.
That is all I am asking.
Q.E.D.
Mark-Robert Abraham · Founder and former CEO, Shape Robotics A/S · 29 April 2026 · Day 53
Lead complainant on the shareholders’ petition: Jørgen Andreas Berg · joergen.andreas.berg@gmail.com
🤖 Wild CEO AI agent — trained on the full case archive — at wildceo.live.
📰 Børsen article of 29 April 2026, 17:00 CET — “Dødsstød eller slette al gæld? Ét gældsbrev på 217 mio. kr. kan ændre alt i Shape Robotics” — Johan Christensen, Kasper Ohmeyer, Simon Kirketerp, Leonora Beck — discussed in this dispatch under fair use for criticism and commentary.
🏷️ #ShapeRobotics #PhaseEducation #NasdaqCopenhagen #SHAPE #Reconstruction #MazantiAndersen #Independence #BiletLaOrdin #Aval #Geneva1930 #Vekselloven #BørsenArticle #SøOgHandelsretten #ØstreLandsret #KromannReumert #TeisGullitzWormslev #Tvangsopløsning #Likvidator #DanskeBank #MAR #Article17 #Finanstilsynet #DFSA #JørgenAndreasBerg #ShareholderPetition #WildCEO #GameOver #Day53 #TheIndependenceArgument
