Previous episodes: Day 78 — Removing Teis From Romania | Day 77 — The Appeal That Cannot Lose | Day 70 — The Expert Behind the Paywall
Nasdaq Copenhagen: SHAPE | CVR: DK38322656 | ISIN: DK0061273125
This Company Announcement is published pursuant to the Nasdaq Copenhagen Rulebook, Section 3.1, and concerns ongoing matters in cases R 1426-G (reconstruction appeal) and B-281-26 (appointment of the trustee before Østre Landsret), and the trustee’s pending statutory duties under Konkursloven §110 in respect of the documented Carnegie market-abuse scheme.
The full GAME OVER investigation (79 episodes) is available at substack.wildceo.live.
Today I had a small epiphany. Let me share it with you, because it simplifies everything.
TL;DR
A senior contact called me a “flat earther” today — the framing of me, apparently, in closed-door meetings where Teis participates. Conspiracy theorist. The crazy one. The one throwing bombs to cover up the real story — that the company simply ran out of money.
Fine. Forget me entirely.
Even if I am the flat earther in this story, the facts stand on their own. The Danish FSA has formally established that Shape Robotics was the victim of market abuse (Carnegie / Topholm reprimand of 7 April 2026). That fact does not require my credibility. It exists in the public record.
And here is the simple consequence: under Danish bankruptcy law, a trustee who becomes aware of facts amounting to criminal conduct is compelled to file a criminal complaint with the police. The market-abuse scheme is documented. The trustee Teis has done nothing about it.
This is the supreme proof. No matter how you frame me, the obligation lies with the curator. Filing the complaint would bring value to the estate — tens of millions of crowns of potential recovery. Not filing it harms creditors. The only explanation for the inaction is that Kromann Reumert is one of Carnegie’s principal advisors. The conflict is total.
The Flat Earther Frame
Let me reconstruct, as fairly as I can, the way I am described in rooms I am not in.
There is a serious, experienced lawyer — head of the bankruptcy division at one of Denmark’s largest law firms — who walks into a failed company. He sees, in his view, an ordinary insolvency: a company that ran out of money. His job is to sell what is left, recover what he can, and distribute it to creditors. Standard work.
Then he encounters the founder. The founder is loud. The founder writes a daily Substack. The founder files appeals, criminal complaints, regulatory complaints, civil-restitution claims, MAR notices. The founder talks about pump-and-dumps, institutional bypass, the European Convention on Human Rights, a Romanian lever, Brussels Ibis, fruit of the poisonous tree.
From that frame, my behaviour looks like the behaviour of a flat earther — a person who has lost the ability to distinguish his own theory from reality.
“I’m the crook in this story. I’m the crazy person that just tries to throw a lot of bombs left and right to cover the noise, to create noise where there should be clarity.”
I want to acknowledge that frame fairly, because I have spent enough months in Denmark to understand where it comes from. Perception in Denmark is bound up with trust. Institutions are trusted by default. Senior lawyers at senior firms are trusted by default. The pump-and-dump claim sounds, in that environment, like Eastern-European paranoia projected onto a normal commercial failure.
Now Forget Me Entirely — Look at the Facts
Imagine, for the sake of argument, that the flat-earther framing is correct. I am loud, I am dramatic, I am wrong about most of what I say. The case still stands — because none of the foundations rest on my credibility.
Here is what survives the concession — every fact independent of me, every source verifiable, every date public:
Shape Robotics was the victim of market abuse — Danish FSA formal reprimand of Carnegie / Lars Topholm under MAR Art. 20(1) — 7 April 2026
The original bankruptcy of 6 January 2026 was unlawful — Eastern High Court, unanimous 3-judge panel, K 3337/25-F — 5 March 2026
MAR obligations apply throughout suspension, liquidation and bankruptcy — DFSA Legal Officer Viktor Stidsen Katic, in writing, twice, J.nr. 25-026876 — 24 & 27 April 2026
The trustee issued zero company announcements in 59 days as representative of a listed issuer — Cision Copenhagen, absence of filings — 6 Jan – 5 Mar 2026
Sanako Oy was bankrupted by its parent’s trustee during the unlawful period — Turun käräjäoikeus public ruling — 5 February 2026
Romanian Ministry of Education lawsuit — Romanian court definitive judgment, not appealed, EUR 24 million — January 2026
Not one of these requires you to believe a word I say. Each one comes from an institution that is independent of me, in a public record that is verifiable by anyone. The Substack is the narrative — the institutions are the proof. So forget me. The facts are still there.
The Curator’s Statutory Duty — The Supreme Proof
Now to the simplifying epiphany of today’s conversation.
Under Danish bankruptcy law, when a trustee — a kurator, likvidator, rekonstruktør, by whatever name — becomes aware of facts that suggest criminal conduct affecting the estate, that trustee is compelled to file a criminal complaint with the police. This is not discretionary. It is a statutory duty rooted in the trustee’s obligation under Konkursloven §110 to act in the interests of the creditors and to identify and pursue every claim that could bring value to the estate.
So let us apply the duty to today’s facts:
The Danish FSA has formally established that Shape Robotics was the victim of market abuse.
The perpetrators are documented: Carnegie Investment Bank and its analyst Lars Topholm.
The damages run into tens of millions of crowns.
Recovery of those damages would be a substantial asset of the estate, benefiting both creditors and shareholders.
The trustee, by statute, is obliged to file a criminal complaint and pursue the civil consequences.
The trustee has not done it. He has not informed creditors. He has not opened an internal file. He has been silent on the question entirely.
This silence is the supreme proof.
For months, the community has been asking: how do we prove the curator is not acting in the interests of the creditors? The answer, after today’s conversation, is now simple. The Carnegie criminal complaint test. Any independent curator, faced with a DFSA reprimand documenting market abuse against the company in the estate, would file. The fact that this curator does not file — and does not speak about not filing — is, on its own, sufficient evidence that he is not serving the creditors.
You do not need to believe a single thing I have said for 79 days. You only need to ask one question: where is the criminal complaint against Carnegie?
The Reason for the Inaction — And It Is Not Mysterious
There is no mystery here. Kromann Reumert is one of Carnegie Investment Bank’s principal Danish advisors. A partner of Kromann Reumert filing a criminal complaint against Carnegie on behalf of one estate would be, in effect, suing one of the firm’s most important clients across the hallway from his own desk.
That is the conflict. It explains everything.
“How can Teis go against his own company? Kromann Reumert is one of the biggest advisors for Carnegie. So how can a partner of Kromann Reumert submit a criminal complaint against one of his colleagues’ clients?” — Live recording, 27 May 2026
I will repeat this every day from now on. The Carnegie criminal complaint test is the cleanest, simplest, hardest-to-misframe demonstration of the curator’s conflict. It cuts through the flat-earther noise entirely.
What Belongs to the Estate — And Therefore to You
Let me state what the Carnegie case is actually worth in concrete terms, because the numbers matter.
The Topholm/Carnegie scheme — the pump-and-dump cycle that destroyed value for the 4,800 retail shareholders of Shape Robotics during 2023–2024 — represents potential damages well into the tens of millions of Danish kroner. These would be recoverable in a civil action following a successful criminal investigation.
The DFSA has already done the heavy lifting on establishing that the abuse occurred. The criminal prosecution would convert it into a damages claim. The civil action would convert the damages claim into cash. That cash belongs to the creditors and shareholders of Shape Robotics. Not to me. Not to the trustee personally. To the estate.
Our community has already done the work the trustee should have been doing. We have documented the extraction scheme — who profited, when, through which accounts. The pump-and-dump complaint is, in my hands, 95% ready. The institutions are willing. The only obstacle is the curator.
One Note of Fairness — Teis Did One Thing Right
In fairness to the record — and because I do not want to be the flat earther — Teis has begun a D&O insurance claim against the former management, including potentially against me. From a curator’s perspective, this is appropriate work; pursuing recoverable insurance lines is part of the duty. I will defend that claim on the merits when it is brought.
But the fact that Teis is doing one thing right does not absolve him of the larger duty he is refusing to perform. Two duties exist. He is performing one and refusing the other. Both are owed to the same estate.
The Larger Lesson — Beyond Me, Beyond Teis, Beyond Carnegie
What the Shape Robotics case has exposed, in the last 79 days, is a small, closed market — Denmark’s listed-equity ecosystem — in which a relatively small number of professional firms, analysts, advisors and journalists all know each other, frequently work for each other, and rarely investigate each other.
In this environment:An analyst with undisclosed positions issues a recommendation that triggers a pump-and-dump cycle — and the press writes nothing.
A listed company gets bankrupted unlawfully in a ten-minute hearing — and the press writes about whether one of its subsidiaries’ lawsuits was booked one quarter too early.
A trustee fails to disclose for 59 days as the representative of a Nasdaq Copenhagen issuer, and the DFSA confirms in writing that he should have — and the press writes nothing.
A criminal complaint against the analyst is not filed by the trustee whose firm advises the analyst’s bank — and the obvious conflict goes unmentioned.
This is the system. It is not a conspiracy. It is what happens when a market is small enough that the costs of exposing each other’s conflicts exceed the benefits of doing so.
Romanians recognise this pattern from a different historical context. Danes have, in good faith, built a system based on trust — and the people who exploit trust-based systems are exactly the people you should be most suspicious of.
I will use this Substack, in the weeks ahead, to draw out those structural lessons more explicitly. Not only daily tactical updates on the case, but the wider analysis: system vulnerabilities, corporate-governance vulnerabilities, human vulnerabilities that the Shape Robotics case has made visible. There is something for other investors, other founders, other regulators to take from this.
Scoreboard — Where We Stand on Day 79
First appeal K 3337/25-F — WON (3 judges, 0 dissent)
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
Motion to replace Teis as curator (Romanian lever) — IN PREPARATION
Carnegie criminal complaint (trustee’s statutory duty) — NOT FILED (the supreme proof of conflict)
Our own Carnegie/Topholm complaint — 95% READY to be formalised
D&O insurance claim (trustee acting appropriately) — STARTED (fair acknowledgement)
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)
What’s Next
27 May 2026 (today) — The Carnegie criminal complaint test, articulated publicly
This week — Preliminary Romanian reconstruction plan filed
Coming days — Motion to replace Teis as curator (Romanian lever)
Awaiting — Eastern High Court ruling on B-281-26
Coming weeks — Substack widens to include structural lessons from the case
Tomorrow — Daily live session, bring your questions
Closing
Even if I am the crazy one in this whole scenario — and let me concede the framing — I was able to prove that there was market abuse. That creates the obligation of the trustee today to file a criminal complaint against Carnegie.
How can Teis go against his own company? Kromann Reumert is one of Carnegie’s biggest advisors. That is the conflict. That is why he will not file.
The interest of the creditors and shareholders requires that complaint to be filed. The only person not doing it is Teis — because he is heavily conflicted.
The Carnegie complaint is the supreme proof. It cuts through the noise. It cuts through me. It cuts through everything. There is no other discussion that should happen right now. We have to keep focusing on this one.
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 — 27 May 2026
Tomorrow: live session. Bring your questions on the Carnegie complaint, the curator’s duty, and the larger structural lessons. The Substack continues.
#GameOver #ShapeRobotics #PhaseEducation #WildCEO #NasdaqCopenhagen #Carnegie #Topholm #MarketAbuse #MAR #ConflictOfInterest #KromannReumert #TeisGullitzWormslev #FlatEarther #R1426G #B2812026 #4800Shareholders
