The Price of Speaking Up

Episode 1 – Finans’ “Experts” vs. Facts: The Full Exchange

The setup

On 16 December 2025, I received an Whatsapp message from journalists at Finans (William Springer, Tobias Hansen Bødker and others). They said they had “another story coming up” about my former role at Sav Integrated Systems.

The email included quotes from two Danish law professors, positioned as neutral “experts,” offering opinions on whether Shape Robotics should have disclosed the Romanian cases and whether I should still be CEO.

I was given an opportunity to “respond.”

This episode publishes the full exchange – their questions, the “expert” quotes, and my complete response – so you can judge whether this is journalism or a predetermined narrative.

---

What they sent (in full)

Finans email:

Hi Mark,

My colleagues William Springer, Tobias Hansen Bødker, and I have another story coming up about the ongoing lawsuits regarding your former role as director at Sav Integrated Systems.

Two experts in securities law are stating that Shape Robotics should have informed the public that you are under indictment and have been ordered to pay damages due to suspicions of fictitious invoices in SAV Integrated Systems.

You should have the opportunity to respond to this.

Here are the quotes from the two experts.

Expert 1: Caspar Rose, Associate Professor, Copenhagen Business School (CBS)

“These things should have been disclosed so that investors could consider them. Keeping things hidden is usually a bad idea because it now exacerbates the negative situation the company is in.”

“It is very, very rare to see such a situation.”

“In a broader perspective, one must also expect that Shape Robotics has done their research before hiring a top executive. So this is not only a criticism of him as a person but also a criticism of those who hired him. They should have conducted better due diligence.”

Expert 2: Louise Damkjær Christensen, Associate Professor, University of Southern Denmark (SDU)

“You cannot trust someone who is indicted for economic crime and who has even been found liable for damages of 120 million DKK, even though he has appealed the case.”

“Will this affect whether shareholders will invest in Shape Robotics? It most likely will. Therefore, in my opinion, the public should have been informed about these cases.”

“It would be optimal to distance oneself from someone who is indicted for economic crime. If I were on the board, I would have terminated him and attributed the recent troubles to him being at the helm.”

Both experts note: “...it is legally difficult to determine whether Shape Robotics has breached their disclosure obligations, as the civil case has been appealed and Mark Abraham is not subject to a conviction in the criminal case.”

---

My response (in full)

On the “experts” and their methodology

Both professors are offering legal opinions without having reviewed:

• The actual Romanian court documents

• The disclosure made to the Shape Robotics board in 2021

• The independent investigation commissioned at that time

• The legal opinion obtained by Shape’s counsel on MAR obligations

• The current status of both cases

In other words, they are commenting on a case they have not studied, based on information selectively provided by Finans.

That is not expertise. That is speculation with a credential.

What actually happened in 2021

When I joined Shape Robotics in August 2021:

1. The board was fully informed about the Romanian proceedings (both civil insolvency and criminal investigation).

2. The then-chairman, Lars Randel Nyengaard, commissioned an independent background investigation to assess any legal or reputational risk to Shape Robotics.

3. Based on that investigation and legal advice from Shape’s counsel, the board concluded—correctly—that:

   • The cases concerned Sav Integrated Systems, not Shape Robotics – operationally and legally distinct entities.

   • Both cases were ongoing, not final.

   • I had not been convicted of any crime.

   • There was no causal link between Sav’s insolvency and Shape Robotics’ operations or accounts.

4. Shape’s legal advisers confirmed that under Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) and Danish securities law:

   • These cases do not constitute “inside information” about Shape Robotics.

   • An indictment or first-instance civil ruling under appeal does not meet the threshold for mandatory disclosure about a CEO’s background unless it directly impacts the company’s operations or financial position.

   • Disclosure of pending legal matters against executives is required when material to the company’s business—not when they concern unrelated historical cases.

5. The board, after due diligence, approved my appointment and confirmed I could lawfully hold my positions.

On Professor Christensen’s statement

Professor Christensen states:

“You cannot trust someone who is indicted for economic crime and who has even been found liable for damages of 120 million DKK, even though he has appealed the case.”

This violates a fundamental principle: presumption of innocence.

• I am not convicted in the criminal case. The case is pending and has not been scheduled.

• The civil case is under appeal, therefore not final, not enforceable, and not a judgment of guilt.

• Under EU law and the Romanian Constitution, every person is presumed innocent until a final judgment is rendered.

• Treating an indictment or first-instance civil ruling as if they were final convictions is the opposite of the rule of law.

If Professor Christensen’s standard were applied universally—no one facing any legal proceeding could hold corporate office, regardless of the merits or eventual outcome.

That is not a legal principle. It is mob justice.

The irony: where are the “experts” on disclosure failures that actually matter?

I find it striking that Finans is so concerned about disclosure obligations regarding a 10-year-old Romanian case that was reviewed and cleared by Shape’s board and counsel in 2021—while showing zero curiosity about actual, current disclosure failures around Shape Robotics.

For example:

• On 5 March 2024, a high-profile Danish analyst published a bullish “back-of-the-envelope” note on Shape Robotics. Did he disclose that he personally held shares at the time of publication?

• In late April 2024, that same analyst sold his Shape shares into the rising market. Was that trade disclosed?

• After selling, he positioned himself as a strategic adviser to me regarding mandates and capital raising—without disclosing to me that he had owned and traded the stock. Is that a disclosure obligation?

• We filed a formal complaint to Nasdaq Copenhagen about suspected market manipulation in November 2025, supported by trading data and documentation.

Where are the CBS and SDU professors’ opinions on that?

Why is Finans obsessed with a Romanian insolvency case from 2015, but completely uninterested in potential pump-and-dump behaviour by a Danish star analyst at a major Nordic bank in 2024? Maybe there is a connection?

Why do the “experts” have urgent opinions about transparency when it concerns a foreign CEO, but silence when it concerns Danish financial institutions?

On the board and due diligence

Professor Rose states:

“Shape Robotics has done their research before hiring a top executive. So this is not only a criticism of him as a person but also a criticism of those who hired him. They should have conducted better due diligence.”

They did conduct due diligence. The then-chairman of Shape Robotics hired a private investigator and obtained legal opinions specifically on this question. The board, having reviewed the findings, approved my appointment.

This is not a failure of due diligence. This is a failure of Finans to understand what due diligence looks like.

The broader pattern

I notice something consistent in how this “story” is framed:

• Professors offer opinions without reviewing documents.

• “Experts” call for my removal based on pending cases.

• The Romanian cases (10 years old, ongoing, under appeal) become the headline.

• The Danish market manipulation complaint (fresh, documented, filed with regulators) is ignored.

• A foreign CEO becomes the target of selective scrutiny.

• Local Danish financial actors remain untouched.

This is not journalism. This is a predetermined narrative dressed up as investigative reporting.

My response to Finans

I offered them a simple deal: a live, recorded conversation – podcast, debate, town hall – about all of this, with any moderator they choose, at any venue.

They declined.

Instead, they chose pre-written expert opinions, selective framing, and the edit button.

That tells you everything you need to know about whether they are interested in truth or in control.

---

For the record

• The Shape Robotics board was fully informed about the Romanian cases in 2021.

• An independent investigation was conducted.

• Shape’s legal advisers confirmed no disclosure obligation under MAR.

• The board approved my appointment after that due diligence.

• Shape Robotics’ accounts are prepared by professionals and audited independently.

• There is no allegation and no evidence of falsified Shape accounts.

• A pending indictment is not a conviction.

• An appealed civil ruling is not final.

• Presumption of innocence is a legal principle, not a suggestion.

---

Next episode

Episode 2 – The Carnegie Timeline: Pump, Dump, and the Mandate That Never Was

I will map the exact dates of the analyst’s note, his personal trades, the market moves, and the conversations that followed – so you can see the pattern for yourself.