Balkan’s position — stated fairly

In its 11 August 2026 response, Balkan, through Nahaboo, said:

•      Balkan had fully and duly performed all contractual obligations.

•      It acted transparently and in good faith and supported Kopa even when Kopa or its chosen advising bank was in default.

•      The Millennium agreement was bilateral; Kopa failed its conditions.

•      Balkan delivered the guarantee and was not responsible for Kopa’s lender obligations.

•      Kopa’s accusations and threatened publicity were unfounded and inappropriate.

The formal agreements provide substantial textual support for parts of that defence: separate contracts, disclaimers about funding, beneficiary obligations and a signed performance acknowledgement. Any responsible public account must state those points.

Kopa’s response

Kopa does not ask readers to ignore the contracts. It asks that the contracts be read as a sequence. The first fee release was justified by an alleged SWIFT transmission Kopa says Barclays could not find. The original route was then replaced by paperwork drafted to attribute the change to Kopa. The final acknowledgement was required after Kopa had raised a serious authenticity concern, and before the identified lender rejected the instrument’s custody arrangements. The commercial purpose—funding—was never achieved.