Previous episodes: Day 77: The Appeal That Cannot Lose | Day 70: The Expert Behind the Paywall | Day 69: Romania Enters the Battlefield
Nasdaq Copenhagen: SHAPE | CVR: DK38322656 | ISIN: DK0061273125
This Company Announcement is published pursuant to the Nasdaq Copenhagen Rulebook, Section 3.1, and concerns the pending appeals in cases R 1426-G (reconstruction) and B-281-26 (appointment of the trustee) before Østre Landsret.
The full GAME OVER investigation — 78 episodes — is available at substack.wildceo.live.
A short technical glitch on the Substack server delayed today’s stream — apologies. Now to the substance: how we remove the curator without needing a Danish court to do it for us.
🧭 TL;DR
🇷🇴 The next move is a motion to replace Teis as curator — and the mechanism runs through Romania, not Copenhagen. Shape Robotics Romania is under administration. I remain director under administration. My role, alongside the Romanian curator, is to protect the creditors of the subsidiary. We have identified the principal cause of Romania’s insolvency: the unlawful Danish bankruptcy and Teis’s 59-day mandate.
⚖️ The claim flows uphill. Shape Romania — and its sub-subsidiaries — have claims against the mother company. The mother company was run, during the 59 days, by the man who destroyed value in the daughter. That gives us a creditor’s lever against Teis that does not require the intervention of the Danish High Court.
🪞 Teis is verifying Teis. As today’s curator, one of his core duties is to establish why Shape Robotics is bankrupt. But Shape is bankrupt today because it was unlawfully bankrupt months ago — under Teis. So the curator investigating the cause of the bankruptcy is the curator who caused it. Unheard of.
📜 On the promissory notes: Teis can no longer claim “there is no claim” or “the notes are false.” We have already obtained court orders at subsidiary level for these promissory notes. It is a matter of short time and patience.
🛑 On suspensive effect — managing expectations honestly: we requested it under § 395, but realistically we should proceed on the assumption that the bankruptcy will not be suspended during the appeal. If our enemies say “the suspensive request was rejected, so the appeal will be rejected” — that is manipulation. The two are unrelated.
⏳ Still no ruling on B-281-26. I wrote to the High Court again today. In my reading, silence may favour us: a court that wants to reject an appeal can do so quickly; a court minded to grant relief takes more time. Time may be on our side.
🪞 Teis Verifying Teis — The Absurdity at the Centre
Let me restate the structural absurdity clearly, because it is the heart of everything.
For 59 days — from 6 January to 5 March 2026 — Shape Robotics was in a bankruptcy that the Eastern High Court later declared unlawful. Those 59 days were administered entirely by Teis Gullitz-Wormslev. The damage he did in that window is documented beyond reasonable doubt across these episodes and in the evidence already filed.
Now Teis is curator again, following the 11 May bankruptcy. And one of a curator’s principal jobs is to establish why the company went bankrupt.
PROOF. Shape Robotics is bankrupt today because it was unlawfully bankrupt a few months ago. The cause of today’s bankruptcy lies inside the 59 days. So the curator’s duty to investigate the cause of the bankruptcy requires him to investigate his own conduct during the 59 days. Teis checks Teis. Teis verifies Teis.
Nobody has heard of such a situation. A curator who created a disaster in 59 days, now protecting the creditors of the same estate by verifying himself and his own disaster. It is not a conflict of interest at the margins. It is total. It is the whole thing.
🇷🇴 The Romanian Lever — Why We Don’t Need a Danish Court
This is the part I want shareholders to understand clearly, because it changes the entire balance of the fight.
Here is the situation:
Shape Robotics Romania is under administration. I am the director under administration, working alongside the Romanian curator.
Our shared duty is to protect the creditors of the Romanian subsidiary.
The identified cause of Romania’s insolvency is the unlawful Danish bankruptcy and Teis’s 59-day mandate, which left Shape Romania without management, without decision-making, without the ability to make payments — in total disarray.
Therefore the blame, and the claim that derives from it, runs against Teis and Kromann Reumert.
Now follow the chain:
Step Consequence Shape Romania becomes insolvent A Romanian curator must find the cause and pursue claims The cause is the Danish parent’s 59-day unlawful bankruptcy The claim runs uphill, from daughter to mother The mother company has a duty to compensate the daughter That claim is an asset of the Romanian estate Teis, as Danish trustee, neglected his duty to preserve subsidiary value The claim crystallises against Teis personally and Kromann Reumert
This means Shape Robotics Romania — and its sub-subsidiaries — hold claims against the mother company, and the mother company was run, during the critical window, by the man who destroyed value in the daughter. That gives us a creditor’s lever against Teis that operates through Romanian and European enforcement mechanisms — without requiring a Danish court to act first.
We have the instruments available to us. In the coming weeks, we use them.
“We can do that without the intervention necessarily of the High Court. Right now we have instruments available to us to do that without any kind of Danish court.”
— Live recording, 26 May 2026
I will keep the precise technical structure of the motion as a surprise — including a surprise for Teis, who, I am now convinced, follows these streams every day. I have dropped several hints to see how he reacts. We have seen the reactions. I am convinced.
📣 A Direct Word to the Curator
I will speak directly, because I know you are watching.
You have to stop. There is no way for you to recover anything from this. The only thing left in your control is whether you amplify the damage you have created — for yourself and for the company. This moment is already lost for you, Teis. You will be removed from your position sooner rather than later. There are multiple avenues open against you.
You cannot keep claiming there is no claim, or that the promissory notes are false. We have already obtained the court orders at subsidiary level for these promissory notes. It is a matter of short time. We are patient.
Stop amplifying the bill. It will come. You will pay it.
🛑 On Suspensive Effect — An Honest Word
There were comments about the suspensive nature of our appeal — the request under § 395 to suspend the bankruptcy of Shape Robotics until the appeal is decided.
Let me be honest with you, because honesty is the entire point of this channel.
A suspensive-effect request usually requires considerable strength to be granted. In my opinion, we should proceed on the assumption that the proceedings will not be suspended during the appeal. We will wait for the appeal itself.
This is not something you need to treat as important. And when our enemies say “the suspensive request was rejected, therefore the appeal will be rejected” — recognise that for what it is: manipulation. The suspensive request and the merits of the appeal are unrelated. Do not fall victim to it.
The path in front of us is now very direct and very clear. It is a legal battle. We have played our cards. The job now is patience and open dialogue.
⏳ Still No Ruling on B-281-26 — And Why That May Be Good
I wrote to the High Court again today regarding the decision on the appeal against the appointment of Teis as liquidator (B-281-26). Still nothing.
In my reading, this silence may favour us:
A court that wants to reject an appeal can do so quickly. A court that is minded to grant relief — to follow our prayers — tends to take more time. Time, in this reading, is on our side.
I offer this as my interpretation, not a guarantee. But I do not read the silence as a bad sign.
🌍 The Shareholder-Centric Doctrine — Why I Stream Every Day
I want to say something about why I do this — the daily streams, the documents, the transparency — because it goes to the kind of reconstruction we are building.
During the 59 days, Teis had a legal obligation to communicate with the market and disclosed nothing. Since we resumed control, we have published more than 15 company announcements plus daily information — even though, as the party fighting the trustee, we have no formal obligation to share. We share because transparency serves the shareholders.
This is, I believe, a new model for how a publicly listed company should interact with its investors:
Direct dialogue between management and retail investors, on open platforms.
The same level of information retail investors would otherwise never get — the kind shared only in Tier 1 investor meetings, with investment bankers, with analysts of Topholm’s caliber.
Freedom-of-speech tools like Substack, used to bypass a partisan press that has, in my view, protected the interests of a small, closed financier market rather than the shareholders.
I have even accepted criticism from Progression on one narrow point — that the AE4 situation should probably have been communicated more transparently to shareholders. I am a firm believer that the way we have communicated these last months is the right way, and that it should become a market standard: openness toward retail investors, dialogue as direct as possible — without disclosing inside information or manipulating, as Topholm did.
Today, for example, I received an email from Leonora Beck of Børsen — now a subscriber to this channel — asking for the appeal documents. I will not share those documents in writing at this stage. I will explain their content verbally and transparently through this channel, to keep a clean separation between legal opportunity and legal obligation of disclosure. You, the shareholders, get the information unfiltered, in real time, directly.
🔧 Not an SAS Reconstruction — Shareholder-Centric, Not Creditor-Centric
I want to be explicit about the kind of reconstruction we are building, because it is genuinely different.
We do not plan to do an SAS-style reconstruction, in which existing shareholders are wiped out. Ours is an innovative, different model that is shareholder-centric, not creditor-centric in the classical sense.
Classical reconstruction (SAS-style) Our model Creditor-centric Shareholder-centric Existing shareholders diluted/wiped Existing shareholders’ integrity preserved Debt restructured, equity sacrificed Debt converted to litigation rights against those who caused the damage New institutional money takes control New capital invited transparently, shareholders decide
The creditor win, we essentially already have — we have the instruments necessary to deliver a creditor outcome. What we are still fighting for are the instruments to restart the company and bring it back toward its pre-pump-and-dump value. That is the mission. That is what the daily fight, and the daily transparency, is for.
“You are not useful idiots. You are my partners.”
📊 Scoreboard — Where We Stand on Day 78
First appeal (K 3337-25-F) — WON, 3 judges, 0 dissent, 5 March 2026.
DFSA Topholm complaint (25-026420) — WON, Carnegie reprimanded.
DFSA MAR confirmations (24–27 April) — DOCUMENTED IN WRITING.
Subsidiary court orders on promissory notes — OBTAINED.
Reconstruction appeal (R 1426-G) — FILED 25 MAY, 60 points, 14 exhibits.
Motion to replace Teis as curator (Romanian lever) — IN PREPARATION, coming days.
Suspensive effect request (§ 395) — PENDING, proceed assuming NOT granted.
Appeal on Teis as liquidator (B-281-26) — AWAITING RULING, silence may favour us.
Shape Romania reconstruction — OPEN, preliminary plan this week.
Claim Romania → mother company → Teis & Kromann Reumert — CRYSTALLISING.
Several secret actions — DELIBERATELY NOT PUBLIC.
🔜 What’s Next
Today, 26 May 2026: announced the motion-to-replace-curator strategy via the Romanian lever.
Coming days: motion to replace Teis as curator — technical structure kept as a surprise.
This week: preliminary Romanian reconstruction plan filed.
Awaiting: High Court ruling on B-281-26.
Tomorrow: daily live session — bring your questions.
✊ Closing
“How can Teis verify Teis? It’s unheard of.”
“We can do that without the intervention of the High Court. We have the instruments.”
“This moment is already lost, Teis. You will be removed sooner rather than later.”
“We do not plan an SAS-mode reconstruction. Ours is shareholder-centric, not creditor-centric.”
“I’m quite thankful to Thais for making so many mistakes — and just waiting for the bill to come. He will have to pay.”
Q.E.D.
Mark-Robert Abraham Founder · Former CEO · Shareholder Shape Robotics A/S (now Phase Education A/S) Director · Shape Robotics Romania S.R.L. (in administration) CVR 38322656 · ISIN DK0061273125 Nasdaq Copenhagen: SHAPE (suspended)
Voluntari, Ilfov, Romania — 26 May 2026
Tomorrow: daily live session. Enjoy the sun — summer is coming. See you then.
#GameOver #ShapeRobotics #PhaseEducation #WildCEO #NasdaqCopenhagen #Reconstruction #CuratorReplacement #Romania #R1426G #B28126 #KromannReumert #TeisGullitzWormslev #ShareholderCentric #4800Shareholders
