Previous episodes: Day 80: They Call It Creditor Information | Day 79: The $42 Million That Never Landed | Day 78: Removing Teis From Romania
Nasdaq Copenhagen: SHAPE | CVR: DK38322656 | ISIN: DK0061273125
They Sent the Ruling to the Wrong Person
GAME OVER · Day 81
Yesterday the High Court rejected my appeal because — it said — a court had already ruled on Teis’s conflict of interest on 5 May. I had never heard of that ruling. They mailed it to a shareholder’s inbox. And when I asked why, the court wrote back today and said they’ll mail it to him again. My address? They spelled it wrong.
This Company Announcement is issued pursuant to the Nasdaq Copenhagen Rulebook, section 3.1, concerning the Eastern High Court’s order of 1 June 2026 in case B-281-26 and the newly surfaced Insolvency Court order of 5 May 2026 in case SK-524/2026-SHR. The full GAME OVER investigation — 81 episodes — is at substack.wildceo.live.
I went live yesterday still in shock. I hadn’t even posted. I want to walk you through this slowly, the way I did on the stream — because the absurdity only lands when you see the documents side by side. So I’ll show you the documents.
╔═══ 🧭 TL;DR ═══╗
The High Court rejected my appeal in case B-281-26 — but mostly on procedure. The dissolution part belongs in administrative court. That was never the point.
The point was the conflict of interest — that Teis should never have been appointed. On that, the High Court said it couldn’t rule, because the Maritime Court had already decided it, by an order dated 5 May 2026.
I had never seen that order. The Maritime Court ruled — closed session, no one summoned — that Teis is fit to stay, then mailed it only to Bo, a shareholder, via his e-Boks.
Their logic for keeping Teis: he was a “good” trustee because creditors picked him — in the bankruptcy the High Court already declared unlawful.
I emailed the court asking what happened. They wrote back today and said they’ll send it to Bo again — and asked for my address, which is signed at the bottom of the very petition that produced the ruling.
I’m filing a fresh appeal tonight.
╚═══════════════╝
—— ✦ ——
THE STORY, STEP BY STEP
🗓️ 17 April — I’m in a hearing. The court appoints Teis liquidator. To avoid translation risks, I ask — orally — that the court also send documents to Bo, a shareholder helping me. As a backup copy, to his email. Not as a replacement for serving me.
🗓️ 22 April — Five days later, I file the petition to remove Teis: eight independent grounds of conflict. I sign it with my full address. By email — the same channel that had worked all along.
🗓️ 5 May — The Maritime Court rules on my petition. Closed session. No one summoned. It decides Teis stays. I am not told. The ruling goes to Bo’s e-Boks — not even the email we’d mentioned, but his digital mailbox.
🗓️ 1 June (yesterday) — The High Court rejects my appeal, pointing to that 5 May ruling as already-decided. That is how I learn it exists — weeks later, secondhand.
🗓️ Today — The court’s head secretary replies to my question. Here it is, word for word.
▼ ▼ ▼ [ EP81_EXHIBIT_court_email.png ] ▼ ▼ ▼
Two claims in that email. Both fall apart.
❌ “Your email is not secure.” Then how did the High Court email me — in this same case — and receive my address by reply? Every decision, every exchange, came by email without a problem. Suddenly, for this one ruling, email won’t do.
❌ “Agreed on 17 April.” No. On 17 April I agreed to a backup copy to Bo. And it’s chronologically impossible: the petition this ruling answers wasn’t filed until 22 April — five days later. You can’t agree, on the 17th, how to deliver a decision about a document that won’t exist until the 22nd.
—— ✦ ——
THE ADDRESS
I wrote it three times — in the email header, in the body, and signed at the end of the petition. No mention of Bo anywhere. Here is what I wrote, and what they put on my summons:
▼ ▼ ▼ [ EP81_EXHIBIT_address_compare.png ] ▼ ▼ ▼
They dropped “Tube.” They changed “Strada” to “Intrarea.” They deleted Casa 13, Voluntari, and Ilfov. It is a different street. I don’t live there.
You cannot copy-paste an address from a request — and they couldn’t even do that.
—— ✦ ——
THE LOGIC THAT BROKE ME
Set the address aside for a second. Look at why the Maritime Court says Teis should stay.
Their reasoning: Teis is a fit liquidator because the creditors appointed him trustee — in the January bankruptcy. The January bankruptcy that the Eastern High Court unanimously annulled on 5 March as unlawful.
╔═══ 🤡 READ THAT TWICE ═══╗
The court says Teis is fit to be liquidator BECAUSE he was chosen as trustee by creditors in a bankruptcy that was declared illegal. They’re using an unlawful proceeding as the credential that qualifies him for the next one.
╚═════════════════════════╝
And it gets worse, because of the chain:
🔗 6 Jan — Teis appointed trustee in a bankruptcy later ruled unlawful.
🔗 5 Feb — As that trustee, Teis bankrupts Sanako Oy (Finland, ~€8.6M) on a mandate that turns out to have no legal basis.
🔗 5 Mar — High Court annuls the January bankruptcy and remits it.
🔗 6 May — Teis, now liquidator, petitions for a new bankruptcy.
🔗 11 May — New bankruptcy granted. Teis appointed trustee again.
So the second bankruptcy grows directly out of the first, unlawful one. Teis’s job now is to investigate the causes of the second bankruptcy — which means investigating his own conduct during the first, the one a higher court already struck down.
╔═══ ⚖️ THE IMPOSSIBILITY ═══╗
A liquidator who — on the back of an unlawful bankruptcy — petitions for a new one cannot then be the person who impartially investigates whether that first proceeding, and his own role in it, gives rise to claims against himself.
This isn’t a conflict of interest. It’s a logical impossibility. Teis investigating Teis.
╚══════════════════════════╝
—— ✦ ——
WHY THIS IS BIGGER THAN A TYPO
This is the same mistake as the first time. The January bankruptcy was annulled because they served the wrong person — a board member, not the company properly. Now, on the conflict ruling, they’ve done it again: served a shareholder’s inbox instead of me, the petitioner, at the address I gave them three times.
I am a European citizen. I file everything in good order, in good faith, in a language not my own, at real cost. And the floor under all of it is this: a court ruled against me on the most important question in the case — whether the man liquidating my company is conflicted — in a room where no one was summoned, mailed it to the wrong person, misspelled my address, and then, when asked, offered to mail it to the wrong person again.
In Romania we’re raised on suspicion of hidden hands. Denmark is built on the opposite — on trust that the procedure protects you. That’s exactly why a procedural trap is so dangerous here: it runs to completion while everyone assumes the system is working.
—— ✦ ——
📊 SCOREBOARD — DAY 81
✅ First appeal (K 3337/25-F) — WON, 3 judges, unanimous. ✅ DFSA / Carnegie (Topholm) — WON, reprimand issued. ❌ Appeal B-281-26 — lost yesterday, on procedure, not substance. ⚖️ Forced dissolution (the appeal’s minor part) — belongs in administrative court, never the priority. ⚠️ Teis’s conflict (5 May ruling) — decided in closed session, never served on me. 🔧 Fresh appeal vs 5 May ruling — filing tonight, suspension + deadline restoration. ⏳ Creditor petition § 108(2), ≈51% of claims — deadline Friday 5 June, parallel track. 📨 Access-to-documents request — sent, awaiting the court’s account of “service.”
—— ✦ ——
🔜 WHAT’S NEXT
📨 Tonight — I file the appeal against the 5 May ruling. Three asks: overturn it, suspend Teis now, restore the deadline. I’ll ask the High Court to count the clock from 1 June, the day I actually learned it existed.
⏳ Friday, 5 June — The creditors’ petition to replace the trustee, backed by roughly half the claim mass, falls due. Two fronts. Same nail.
—— ✦ ——
CLOSING
🎙️ “They decided whether the man liquidating my company is conflicted — in a room where no one was summoned.”
🎙️ “They mailed the ruling to a shareholder’s inbox. When I asked why, they offered to mail it to him again.”
🎙️ “Their logic for keeping Teis: he was picked as trustee in a bankruptcy that was ruled illegal.”
🎙️ “My address is in my petition three times. They wrote a street I don’t live on.”
🎙️ “The clock runs from service. There was no service. So the clock never started. So I’m on time.”
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 reconstruction) CVR 38322656 · ISIN DK0061273125 · Nasdaq Copenhagen: SHAPE (suspended) Voluntari, Ilfov, Romania — 1 June 2026
#GameOver #ShapeRobotics #PhaseEducation #WildCEO #NasdaqCopenhagen #DueProcess #Article6 #TeisGullitzWormslev #KromannReumert #ConflictOfInterest #B281_2026 #SK524
