Previous episodes: Day 66: Bemærkninger Filed | Day 65: The Mathematical Structure | Day 52: The Thief Cries Thieves
Nasdaq Copenhagen: SHAPE | CVR: DK38322656 | ISIN: DK0061273125
This Company Announcement is published pursuant to the Nasdaq Copenhagen Rulebook, Section 3.1, and constitutes a disclosure of material developments in appeal case B-281-26 before Østre Landsret, 4. afdeling.
The full GAME OVER investigation — 67 episodes documenting the annulment of the bankruptcy, the criminal complaint, the DFSA reprimand, and the fight for 4,800 shareholders — is available at substack.wildceo.live.
68 days since the Danish High Court unanimously annulled the bankruptcy of Shape Robotics.
🧭 TL;DR
🗓️ 5 March 2026 — Østre Landsret unanimously annuls the bankruptcy decree of 6 January 2026 in case K 3337/25-F. Three judges, zero dissent. The case is remitted to Sø- og Handelsretten for re-adjudication.
🗓️ 20 March 2026 — Sø- og Handelsretten holds the first hearing on the remitted case. Acknowledges the petitions were never lawfully served. Grants a 5-month adjournment for proper service.
🗓️ 17 April 2026 — Same Maritime Court issues compulsory dissolution on the wrong day. I am examined under oath without a certified interpreter. The “translator” is an attorney from Kromann Reumert — the trustee’s own law firm. Teis Gullitz-Wormslev is appointed liquidator for the second time.
🗓️ 11 May 2026 — 10-minute hearing. Reconstruction rejected. Bankruptcy stamped same day, different judge, same trustee. Third appointment in four months.
🗓️ 13 May 2026 (today) — I file 70+ pages, 27 exhibits, four grounds of appeal with the Eastern High Court. Including last-minute Ground D: the lower court has never re-adjudicated the case the High Court ordered it to re-adjudicate. 68 days. Zero hearings on the remitted case. Two alternative procedures invented to reach the same outcome.
🎯 The killer formulation:
“This is not a process. This is a circumvention.”
📐 The mathematical chain:
Premise 1 → Rpl. § 396(2): remittal from the High Court is binding on the first instance.
Premise 2 → 68 days have passed without re-adjudication of the remitted case.
Premise 3 → Two alternative procedures (forced dissolution + new bankruptcy) reach the same outcome the remittal was meant to test.
Conclusion → The lower court has materially disregarded the binding remittal.
$$\text{Remittal} + \text{Non-execution} + \text{Substitution} \Rightarrow \text{Bypass of Article 6 ECHR}$$
The Eastern High Court cannot answer Ground D without admitting that its own rulings are binding. No appellate court can answer that question in the negative.
📨 What I Filed Today
Three documents. 70+ pages. 27 exhibits. Two languages. Four grounds of appeal.
Document Language Pages Bemærkninger nr. 2 og Supplerende Processkrift nr. 2 Danish (official) 29 Comments No. 2 and Supplementary Pleading No. 2 English (international) 31 Supplerende Bemærkninger nr. 3 — Ground D Bilingual DA/EN 10 TOTAL — 70+
All three are attached to this episode as a single 99-page PDF. You can read every paragraph the three judges of the 4th Division will read. No legal evasions. No selective quoting. The full record, exactly as filed.
[📎 Download EPISODE_67_FULL_WITH_APPEAL.pdf]
📑 The Four Grounds, in the Order We Want the Court to Read Them
The four grounds are stacked deliberately. They give the High Court four different paths to reach the same conclusion — annulment — depending on how much it wants to engage with the underlying merits.
Ground Argument Type A Lack of certified interpreter at the 17 April hearing Procedural D Bypass of the High Court’s own remittal of 5 March Institutional B No material basis for compulsory dissolution Substantive C Conflict of interest — removal of the trustee Subsidiary
Ground A is the easiest off-ramp. The facts are uncontested. I was placed under oath without a certified interpreter. ECHR Article 6(3)(e). Section 149 of the Administration of Justice Act. EU Directive 2010/64/EU. The European Court of Human Rights has established a clear positive obligation on national courts in Cuscani v. UK (2002) and Hermi v. Italy (2006).
Ground D is the smoking gun. The High Court ordered re-adjudication on 5 March. 68 days later, no re-adjudication has occurred. Two alternative procedures have reached the same outcome. The Eastern High Court has to defend its own authority.
Ground B is the substantive defect. As of 17 April 2026, the company had a board (Cision 06-26, unanimous EGM resolution) and an address (approved by the Danish Business Authority’s own caseworker under case #137907, 26 March 2026). Section 225 of the Companies Act was inapplicable.
Ground C is the subsidiary ask. Teis Gullitz-Wormslev has five active cases against him personally. Removing him is the proper structural remedy.
⚖️ Ground A — The Interpreter
I am a Romanian citizen. CNP 1820831351579. Resident in Voluntari, Ilfov, Romania. Romanian native speaker. English fluent. Danish functional, not legal-grade.
On 17 April 2026 at 11:00 AM, the Maritime and Commercial Court placed me under oath under Section 305 of the Administration of Justice Act. The examination proceeded in Danish. There was no certified interpreter.
The only “translation” was performed by Albert Mungo Madsen — an attorney from Kromann Reumert, the same law firm as the trustee Teis Gullitz-Wormslev, and himself the subject of a separate police complaint in the same case complex.
Four days later, I wrote to Børsen journalist Leonora Beck, who had personally attended the hearing:
“This is the appeal we have made yesterday. It’s outrageous! I was put under oath, with no translator .... you where there @Leonora Beck you should see now the reality.”
— Email to Leonora Beck (Børsen), 21 April 2026, 14:11:03 CET (Exhibit 27)
Three other Børsen journalists — Kasper Ohmeyer, Simon Kirketerp, and Johan Christensen — were copied. Each can be called as witness under Section 168 of the Administration of Justice Act.
PROOF ONE
Contemporaneous documentary evidence. Sent 4 days after the hearing. Independent journalist. Three more journalists on CC. Res ipsa loquitur.
This is what makes Ground A unbeatable.
🎯 Ground D — The Smoking Gun
The argument is mathematically simple:
On 5 March 2026, the Eastern High Court ordered the Maritime and Commercial Court to re-adjudicate the original bankruptcy petition.
68 days have passed. The Maritime and Commercial Court has never re-adjudicated the case.
Instead, it invented two alternative procedures (forced dissolution + new bankruptcy) to reach the same outcome — Teis Gullitz-Wormslev as trustee — without ever addressing the High Court’s order.
The Legal Framework
Five separate legal sources prohibit what the lower court has done:
Source Principle Rpl. § 396(2) A remittal from the High Court is binding on the first instance. Rpl. § 235(1) Lis pendens prohibits parallel proceedings on the same subject-matter. ECHR Article 6(1) Right to fair trial includes effective implementation of appellate decisions. Grundloven § 3 Separation of powers requires lower court compliance with higher court rulings. Res judicata Final decisions cannot be circumvented by alternative procedures on the same matter.
The Strasbourg Authority
The European Court of Human Rights, in Bochan v. Ukraine (No. 2), Grand Chamber, 5 February 2015, held:
“It would be inconceivable that Article 6 § 1 should describe in detail procedural guarantees afforded to litigants — proceedings that are fair, public and expeditious — without protecting the implementation of judicial decisions. Execution of a judgment given by any court must therefore be regarded as an integral part of the trial for the purposes of Article 6.“
Non-execution of an appellate decision is a violation of Article 6. Here we have something worse than non-execution: replacement of the appellate decision with alternative procedures designed to reach the same outcome the appellate decision had struck down.
PROOF TWO
The lower court has never scheduled a hearing on the remitted case. 68 days. Two parallel procedures invented in the meantime, both leading to the same outcome with the same trustee. This is institutional defiance, not procedural delay.
🤲 The Three Things Teis Did
A trustee’s mandate under Konkurslov § 113 is to preserve the estate. During his 59-day unlawful trusteeship between 6 January and 5 March 2026, Teis did the opposite — three times.
1. Bankrupted Sanako Oy — a profitable subsidiary with active contracts in Poland and Finland. Filed at Turun käräjäoikeus on 5 February 2026.
2. Issued zero company announcements via Cision in 59 days as trustee of a Nasdaq Copenhagen-listed issuer. MAR Article 17 violation — confirmed by the Danish FSA in writing on 27 April 2026 and again on 12 May 2026.
3. Cancelled the 22 January 2026 EGM that would have ratified the IRIS Capital equity line of up to 15 million shares (~EUR 15 million) and the new board.
All three actions taken while the appeal was pending. He knew the bankruptcy might be annulled. He acted as if it would not be.
PROOF THREE
Under Finnish company law (Osakeyhtiölaki 624/2006), a wholly-owned Oy’s voluntary bankruptcy filing requires shareholder authorization. The sole shareholder of Sanako Oy was Shape Robotics A/S. Between 6 January and 5 March 2026, the only person legally able to exercise Shape Robotics A/S’s shareholder rights was the kurator under Konkurslov § 110. The kurator was Teis Gullitz-Wormslev himself.
$$\text{Sanako bankruptcy} \xRightarrow{\S 110} \text{Teis authorized it} \xRightarrow{\text{annulment}} \text{Teis had no authority to authorize anything}$$
📊 Scoreboard
Battle Outcome Status First appeal (K 3337/25-F) Bankruptcy annulled, 3-0 unanimous ✓ WON DFSA Topholm complaint (25-026420) Carnegie analyst reprimanded for MAR Art. 20(1) ✓ WON MAR Article 17 supervisory file Active at DFSA, confirmed in writing 12 May 2026 ⚙️ OPEN Police complaint (0100-83986-10362-26) Active investigation, Copenhagen NSK ⚙️ OPEN Bar Council disciplinary case (2026-1127) Pending review ⚙️ OPEN Forced dissolution (17 April) Appealed in B-281-26 ⚖️ APPEAL FILED TODAY New bankruptcy (11 May) Appealed in B-281-26 (supplement) ⚖️ APPEAL FILED TODAY Ground D — institutional bypass New ground, filed today 🎯 THE KILLER ARGUMENT
🔜 What Happens Next
Danish bankruptcy appeals are statutorily prioritised under Konkursloven § 248 — uden ugrundet ophold, without unfounded delay. My Danish counsel tells me to expect a ruling within days of the 13 May deadline.
The first appeal (K 3337/25-F) took 58 days. The second (B-281-26) will be faster, because the chamber already knows the case, the legal issues are familiar, and the institutional question raised by Ground D is too sharp to leave unresolved.
Date Event 13 May 2026 (today) Bemærkninger 2 + Ground D Supplement filed ~14–18 May 2026 Eastern High Court 4th Division reads ~18–25 May 2026 Ruling expected
✊ Why I Write This
I am not a lawyer. I am an engineer. I built a Nasdaq-listed company from 0.8M to 302M DKK in revenue. I watched it being destroyed by a court process I once believed in.
I write this because the alternative is silence. And silence is what the architects of this story are counting on.
The 4,800 shareholders of Shape Robotics did not consent to losing their investment because of a salary dispute that should have gone to the Employees’ Guarantee Fund. The 700 employees did not consent to losing their jobs because of an attorney’s interest in being appointed trustee. The Danish public did not consent to having its judicial system used as a private debt collection tool.
This document — and the 70 pages of formal legal pleadings filed today at the Eastern High Court — is what consent looks like when it has been violated. It is the record. It is the truth, in the words of the people who lived it.
If the Eastern High Court rules in our favour, the company is restored. If not, the case goes to Højesteret, then to Strasbourg, then to history.
Either way, the story does not end here.
🔚 Closing
“Three judges, no dissent. Our victory was sublime.”
“The law is a mathematical structure.”
“This is not a process. This is a circumvention.”
“Common sense, not common law.”
“Will bring justice back to Denmark. We’ll change the law for you.”
Q.E.D.
Mark-Robert Abraham Founder · Former CEO · Shareholder Shape Robotics A/S (now Phase Education A/S) CVR 38322656 · ISIN DK0061273125 Nasdaq Copenhagen: SHAPE (suspended)
Voluntari, Ilfov, Romania — 13 May 2026
Attached: [EPISODE_67_FULL_WITH_APPEAL.pdf] — 99 pages, Part One narrative + Part Two complete appeal documentation as filed today with the Eastern High Court (Bemærkninger nr. 2 in Danish, Comments No. 2 in English, Ground D Supplement bilingual).
#GameOver #ShapeRobotics #PhaseEducation #WildCEO #NasdaqCopenhagen #ECHR #Article6 #LisPendens #DanishLaw #B281_2026 #KromannReumert #TeisGullitzWormslev #InstitutionalBypass #GroundD #RuleOfLaw #4800Shareholders
