┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ TL;DR — TODAY'S RULING │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ Reconstruction petition: REJECTED on the merits │
│ Bankruptcy petition: GRANTED │
│ Liquidator continues: Teis Gullitz-Wormslev │
│ │
│ ────────────────────────────────────────────── │
│ │
│ Total hearing time .................. ~10 minutes │
│ Judge speaking ........................ ~5 minutes │
│ All parties combined .................. ~5 minutes │
│ Time we had to rebut Teis's claims ..... 0 minutes │
│ │
│ ────────────────────────────────────────────── │
│ │
│ This is NOT a definitive decision. │
│ Appeal already in motion. Final answer at High Court. │
│ │
│ The promissory note that the first instance "did not │
│ understand" is already a valid registered claim in Romania. │
│ In ~6 weeks we will return to Østre Landsret with a │
│ Romanian title executoriu, recognized in Denmark under │
│ EU Regulation 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis). │
│ │
│ ────────────────────────────────────────────── │
│ │
│ IT IS GOOD THAT RECONSTRUCTION DID NOT OPEN TODAY. │
│ Teis attempted to install his own accountant inside it. │
│ We were not ready for hostile reconstruction. │
│ Opening it at appeal = definitive solution, no proxy war. │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Standing disclaimers: I am Mark-Robert Abraham, founder and former CEO of Shape Robotics A/S (CVR 38322656), Romanian citizen writing in personal capacity. This is a journalistic compilation of facts that are independently verifiable in Danish public records. Every name appearing here is a public actor. Final legal filings remain the prerogative of Mazanti-Andersen (Philip A. Borreschmidt). The procedural views below are mine and the company’s — not legal accusations against any specific actor.
What happened today
At Sø- og Handelsretten this morning, two petitions were on the docket:
Reconstruction, filed by our main creditor Elena Pasat (~DKK 400M of total ~DKK 500M group debt traces back to Romania)
Bankruptcy, filed by liquidator Teis Gullitz-Wormslev
The court ruled against reconstruction and for bankruptcy.
I am not going to comment on the merits of the judge’s decision in language that creates noise. Bo, who was in court with me, can confirm what we both observed: the proceeding was short, the central document under discussion — a registered promissory note — was clearly unfamiliar to the bench, and the time available did not permit full ventilation of any of the substantive arguments.
So instead of complaining about the procedural form, let me explain what the ruling actually means.
The procedural reality
The Danish maritime and commercial court (Sø- og Handelsretten) processes insolvency matters quickly. Today’s hearing was approximately ten minutes total — five for the bench, five split among all parties — followed by a short deliberation and ruling.
For a case with documented system-wide exposure in the DKK hundreds of millions to billions, with cross-border claims, multiple defendants, and a central instrument (the promissory note) governed by the Geneva Convention 1930 + Romanian law on aval (Legea 58/1934), a ten-minute hearing is not where this case can be properly decided.
It is, however, the procedural form Danish bankruptcy courts use.
The decisions at first instance in Danish bankruptcy court are immediately enforceable (no automatic delayed effect on appeal). This is unusual by EU standards. Denmark, in fact, opted out of the EU European Enforcement Order regime — the only EU member to do so. The bankruptcy courts here operate on fast-forward by design.
This is why every meaningful decision in this case is going to be made at the appeal level. We always knew that. We said so from the beginning. Today simply confirmed the route.
Why losing today is, paradoxically, the better outcome
Here is what nobody is reporting:
During today’s hearing, an accountant appeared in the courtroom who had not been introduced by either Mazanti-Andersen or by Elena Pasat’s counsel. We did not know who brought him. It became clear during proceedings that Teis was attempting to install one of his own people as a “co-reconstruction accountant” alongside Philip Borreschmidt from Mazanti.
Under the procedural reform of 2011, having a reconstruction accountant is no longer compulsory in Danish law. But the court can still appoint one if a party requests it. Had reconstruction been opened today, the structure would have been:
Reconstructor (lawyer): Mazanti-Andersen
Reconstructor (accountant): a Teis-affiliated party
That is a hostile reconstruction. The very person whose conduct caused the unlawful 6 January 2026 bankruptcy — annulled unanimously by Østre Landsret on 5 March 2026 (K 3337/25-F) — would have been operating inside the reconstruction itself, through a proxy, alongside our counsel.
We were not prepared for that. We did not see it coming. Had reconstruction opened with that structure, we would have lost it from the inside.
By ruling against reconstruction at first instance, the court inadvertently saved us from a hostile reconstruction we would have lost. The appeal route now leads to reconstruction without Teis-affiliated proxies inside. That is a definitively better outcome.
What changes for the appeal
The High Court (Østre Landsret) will hear three pieces of business in the coming weeks:
Appeal of today’s ruling (rejection of reconstruction + grant of bankruptcy)
Appeal already in motion against Teis’s appointment as liquidator (filed earlier, ruling expected this week or next based on information we have received)
All of it consolidated if the timing aligns
If the High Court rules — and we have strong reasons to believe it will — that Teis should be removed as liquidator due to conflict of interest, then today’s bankruptcy ruling collapses automatically. Because the person who petitioned for bankruptcy today was the liquidator. Remove the liquidator, and the petition that opened bankruptcy today goes with him.
This is why I keep saying: the appeal IS the case. Always was.
The promissory note — and why Teis just made our case for us
The judge today struggled with the nature of the promissory note. In Danish commercial practice, the instrument fell out of common use after the 1960s. In Eastern European practice — Romanian, in particular — it is a standard, registered, non-cash payment instrument with deep historical roots in the bezna l / beznal tradition from the USSR economic system, where governmental institutions and state-owned factories used non-liquid currency instruments for inter-entity payments. The instrument never lost its centrality in Romanian commercial life.
For those new to this: a promissory note is extremely simple, extremely direct, extremely powerful. The debtor-creditor relationship is intentionally constructed so that the creditor does not have to verify the debtor’s internal procedural compliance. That is the entire point of the instrument. If the debtor’s internal signing rules were violated, that is an internal matter for the debtor — not a defense against the creditor’s claim.
Today, Teis attacked the promissory note in Danish court by arguing it was not a valid claim because of internal signing concerns. This was the central argument used to reject reconstruction on the merits.
Here is what Teis did not understand he was confessing.
The promissory note claim is already registered as a valid claim in Romania. It is the lead claim in Romania. The registration period has expired. The claim has matured. It cannot be contested in Romania any longer — neither by Teis, nor by anyone else.
Teis became aware of this Romanian claim on 26 January 2026, when the unlawful bankruptcy he obtained on 6 January 2026 was still in effect. He had three months in which, as bankruptcy curator and de facto administrator of Shape Robotics’ assets — including its subsidiaries — he had a fiduciary duty to contest the claim in Romania if he believed it was invalid.
He did not contest it. He let it mature.
Now, in May 2026, he stands up in Danish court and says the very same claim is invalid.
He has just confessed, on the record, in Danish court, that he failed to perform his fiduciary duty in Romania. He let a claim he now says is invalid mature into a definitively registered claim in Romanian jurisdiction — meaning he caused material loss to Shape Robotics Romania during his tenure as curator. That is a separate, independent cause of action against Teis personally, recoverable from his liability insurance.
He just gave us the case against him.
The Brussels I bis route — what comes next
In 6 weeks, the appeal will be heard. By that time, the following will have happened:
Procedure of ordonanță de plată (sum mary order for payment) initiated in Romania on the basis of the promissory note + aval. Under Romanian law (Codul de Procedură Civilă + Legea 58/1934), this is a summary procedure — typically resolved in 30–60 days, faster if uncontested or if opposition is unfounded.
Romanian title executoriu obtained. Tribunal român applies Romanian law to the aval (per lex loci actus — Geneva Convention 1930 principle: aval is governed by the law of the place where it was given).
Certificate under Article 53 of Regulation 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis) issued by the Romanian court. This certificate, in standardized EU form, attests to the enforceability of the judgment in the state of origin.
Recognition in Denmark under Article 39 of Regulation 1215/2012: “A judgment given in a Member State shall be enforceable in the other Member States without any declaration of enforceability being required.” Denmark applies Brussels I bis under the parallel agreement signed 19 October 2005, in force from 1 July 2007.
Deposit of the Romanian title at Østre Landsret as new evidence in the appeal. Procedurally admissible: the document did not exist at the time of first instance.
The Danish appellate court will face a binary choice:
Recognize the Romanian title (mandatory under EU Reg. 1215/2012, refusal grounds are extremely narrow per Article 45)
OR generate a head-on conflict between two coordinate EU member state judgments on the same claim, which the EU system is structurally designed to prevent
Østre Landsret will choose recognition. That is the architectural logic of the EU judicial space.
When the Romanian title is on the table, the entire premise of today’s ruling collapses. The claim is valid. The aval is valid. The Romanian instance — applying Romanian law to a Romanian aval — has confirmed it. The Danish first-instance ruling that the promissory note “was not a valid claim” cannot survive that.
What this means for shareholders
I want to be very direct with our shareholders.
Today does not change the outcome of this case. It changes only the timing.
If reconstruction had been granted today, it would have been a hostile reconstruction with Teis operating inside through a proxy accountant. We were not ready to fight that war from inside, and we would likely have lost it slowly while feeling like we were winning.
If reconstruction is granted on appeal — which is where the definitive decision was always going to be made — it will be a clean reconstruction. The Romanian title will be on the table. Teis will be in conflict (whether removed as liquidator or formally censured by the DFSA’s pending market abuse ruling on his conduct during the 59 days, which is expected in the next one to two weeks).
The reconstruction plan, as I have said from day one, is the only path that returns value to shareholders.
In bankruptcy:
The Romanian subsidiary (where the center of business and the center of creditor claims actually sits — centre of main interests under EU Insolvency Regulation 2015/848 considerations are more nuanced than the Danish first-instance treatment) absorbs most of the procedural action.
Creditors get paid. They will get paid from Romanian proceedings irrespective of Teis.
Shareholders lose everything — because in liquidation, the equity stack is wiped out by definition.
In reconstruction:
Debt is restructured (haircuts, litigation rights, structured terms)
Shares are diluted but not extinguished
The company resumes operations on a defensible base
We bring back operational team, replace lost contracts, rebuild
The pump-and-dump litigation (DKK 309M–2,477M defendant exposure analyzed in Day 62) becomes an active claim of the company, prosecuted by reconstruction administrators, with proceeds flowing through the capital structure including to shareholders
Reconstruction is the only outcome where shareholders are not zero-ed out. The appeal is the route to reconstruction. Today’s ruling means the appeal happens with the Romanian title executoriu in hand. That is materially stronger than going in without it.
What I observed today, factually
I am being careful with the language. These are observations, not accusations:
The hearing lasted approximately ten minutes total. Bo can confirm.
Teis cited a Børsen newspaper article during his oral argument — I understand the substance was a reference to what Andre Fehrn allegedly knew or did not know. Newspaper articles are not generally admissible as probative evidence in Danish civil procedure (Retsplejeloven § 341 governs admissibility), and their use raised an eyebrow from our side. I am not commenting on the bench’s reaction.
Teis stated in court that he has the support of UniCredit for the bankruptcy. To my direct knowledge, having spoken with UniCredit in Romania, UniCredit’s position is the opposite — they are seeking to attribute the bankruptcy claim to Teis. He did not submit documentary evidence of UniCredit support. I cannot reconcile his statement with the conversations I have had.
An accountant appeared in the courtroom who had not been introduced by Mazanti or by Elena’s counsel. It emerged that Teis was attempting to install him as co-reconstruction accountant. This is procedurally permissible to request, but it was not, in our view, properly disclosed in advance.
The substantive merits of the promissory note — the Geneva 1930 framework, the lex loci actus principle on aval, the Vekselloven §§ 7-8 protections for vekselholdere — were not, in our perception, fully engaged by the bench in the time available.
I record these observations because they are relevant to the appeal. I do not draw legal conclusions from them. Mazanti will frame the appeal arguments in proper Danish legal form.
What changed for me personally
Yesterday I was preparing for a reconstruction that I now realize, in retrospect, would have been a trap. We did not see it coming. We were not ready for a hostile-reconstruction architecture with Teis-affiliated proxies inside the procedure.
Today I am preparing for an appeal with:
A Romanian title executoriu in motion (6 weeks)
A pending appeal against Teis’s appointment as liquidator (decision this week or next)
A pending DFSA ruling on Teis’s conduct during the 59 days (one to two weeks)
Cumulative procedural defects in today’s ruling that mirror exactly the defects Østre Landsret already annulled unanimously in K 3337/25-F (5 March 2026)
Clear, documented, factually verifiable evidence that the central instrument (the promissory note) is registered and matured in Romania, where Teis failed to contest it during his fiduciary tenure
I am more prepared for the appeal than I was for today’s hearing. By a significant margin.
The bigger frame
When I said in Day 62 that the establishment is fighting to keep Shape dead because the bill they face if Shape survives is system-scale (DKK 309M – 2,477M, EUR 105M most likely), today’s ruling fits cleanly into that frame.
What you saw today is what aggressive defense looks like in a system where the bankruptcy court operates on fast-forward and the appellate court is where definitive answers actually happen. Teis, Kromann Reumert’s broader position, the establishment’s preferred procedural form — all of these benefit from speed and from outcomes that produce irreversible facts on the ground before the appellate court can rule.
We knew this from day one. We said it on day one. We are operating accordingly.
Asymmetric warfare, as I said to the audience this evening. We are operating against a Big-5 law firm with thousands of lawyers. We have a small team and a Romanian creditor with a registered claim. What we have, that they do not have, is:
A claim that is materially correct and registered in a coordinate EU jurisdiction
A procedural framework (Brussels I bis) that does not give Denmark veto power
A documented pattern of first-instance procedural defects that the appellate court has already annulled once and is likely to annul again
Time, used efficiently — six weeks is short relative to most commercial litigation, and it is enough to get the Romanian title in place before the appeal
Bottom line
We lost the battle. The war just got simpler.
In six weeks we return to Østre Landsret with:
A Romanian title executoriu confirming the validity of the promissory note in Romanian jurisdiction (where it belongs under lex loci actus)
The certificate under Article 53 of Reg. 1215/2012 making it directly recognizable in Denmark
Documentation that Teis failed in his fiduciary duty to contest the claim in Romania during his curator tenure
All the procedural arguments from Day 62 about § 11 a, § 15 stk. 2, rets-kraft, and the 10-minute hearing not constituting effective hearing under Retsplejeloven § 339, ECHR Art. 6, and Grundloven § 63
A pending DFSA ruling on Teis’s market abuse conduct (expected within one to two weeks)
A pending appeal that may remove Teis as liquidator entirely (expected this week or next)
Any one of those is meaningful. Together they are decisive.
The reconstruction plan — the only path that returns value to shareholders — opens at appeal. Without Teis inside. Without a hostile-reconstruction architecture. On clean procedural footing.
That is what the next six weeks are for.
To everyone following: please understand that today’s ruling is not the end of this story. It is a procedural waypoint on a path we have always been on. The appellate court is where this case ends. Today only confirmed that we are going there with stronger evidence than we would have had otherwise.
I will leave Copenhagen tomorrow. The work continues from Bucharest.
🚨 GAME OVER 🚨
Q.E.D.
— Mark-Robert Abraham Founder & former CEO Shape Robotics A/S Romanian citizen, writing in personal capacity WildCEO.live · 11 May 2026 · Copenhagen
Receipts at the bottom (for the record)
Day 62 (yesterday): Why They All Want Us Dead — Pump & Dump Part 4
Master KB:
SHAPE_ROBOTICS_PUMP_DUMP_MASTER_KB.mdLiability analysis:
SHAPE_LIABILITY_ANALYSIS_MAXIMUM.mdMemo on § 247 / rets-kraft argument:
MEMO_Mazanti_247_inapplicable.md
All published at wildceo.live.
