Why the funding then failed

On 19 November Millennium said the drawdown could not be accepted because the guarantee had not been placed in the custody of a designated Recipient Bank. The loan agreement did contain that condition. Nahaboo responded that nothing had changed and described custody as a normal service that even small banks provide. Kopa then approached banks and advisers.

On 20 November Kopa sent Nahaboo a Barclays Trade Operations email: “This is not a service that Barclays Trade Operations provide.” Kopa proposed four possible solutions: Barclays custody, a non-UK bank, extended escrow custody, or direct custody by Millennium. The facility was nevertheless terminated on 25 November. No proceeds were disbursed.

Balkan says this was Kopa’s separate contractual failure. Kopa says a provider involved in arranging the transaction should have determined before taking and releasing £442,400 whether the selected advising bank could receive or custody the product, and whether the identified lender would accept the substituted hard-copy mechanism.

What Millennium’s bank reportedly said

Kopa subsequently spoke by telephone with the bank used by Millennium. Kopa says the bank confirmed that Millennium held accounts there. The person spoken to also expressed the view that it was unlikely Millennium could satisfy transactions worth millions.

That reported conversation is relevant to the claimed funding capacity, but it must be stated accurately: it is Kopa’s account of a telephone call and the individual’s expressed view, not a written bank determination or proof of Millennium’s balance sheet. Kopa should record the call date, time, department and name or reference number if available.

Kopa eventually found a custody solution—and funding still did not follow

The later WhatsApp record materially weakens the claim that the transaction failed simply because Kopa could not arrange custody. On 8 January 2026, Kopa told Nahaboo that they needed to discuss what a Nevis bank had offered. After weeks of work to obtain agreement, Kopa secured a proposed custody structure involving HR Bank and its stated subsidiary, AAA Escrow.

On 7 April Nahaboo himself asked for the Caribbean bank’s reply and wrote: “They agreed for its custody, right? This is what I remember.” He then reproduced the written confirmation: “HR Bank are prepared to accept custody of your Bank Guarantee via our subsidiary, AAA Escrow.” The message stated that the escrow service was underwritten by Bank of New York Mellon, although the contemporaneous message misspelled “Mellon” as “Melon,” and quoted fees of 2% to 5% of the guarantee’s face value.

This was not the same as Hamilton Bank physically storing the paper itself: the proposed service operated through AAA Escrow, with later messages describing the physical holder as Bank of New York Mellon. But it was a concrete custody arrangement. Nahaboo acknowledged it, requested supporting material, discussed its legal structure and fees, said he was trying to bring Millennium back, and helped draft the renewed email that Kopa then sent to Millennium. On 15 July Kopa recorded that Millennium had ignored that email; Nahaboo did not dispute that it had been sent.

Even after Kopa did what it had been told was missing and identified a willing custodian, neither Millennium nor any Balkan-linked replacement creditor funded the transaction. The evidence objectively establishes that a custody solution was found and communicated. Kopa believes the continuing failure supports the inference that the custody objection was not the true obstacle and that the parties never expected Kopa to overcome it. The records presently establish that inference; they do not directly prove another person’s private state of mind.

What happened after Millennium

From December 2025 through August 2026, Nahaboo discussed alternative creditors, calls, internal work and potential progress. The tone was often reassuring and personal. The record contains repeated short-horizon expectations—calls later that day, feedback tomorrow, a creditor nearly secured—but no replacement creditor funded a facility.

Kopa remained exposed while the one-year guarantee continued toward expiry. By 10 August 2026, Kopa stated that fewer than 100 days remained and that no Balkan-linked credit agreement had paid out. Balkan maintained that funding was not its obligation and that its collateral obligations were complete.

Assurances given when the custody problem emerged

On 19 November 2025, after Millennium rejected drawdown for want of bank custody, Nahaboo told Kopa: “No need to panic”; custody was “nothing complicated at all”; it was a “normal service” provided even by small banks; Millennium wanted to complete quickly; McPherson “always [had] a solution”; and, if Barclays refused, he would seek another bank which he was “sure” would not refuse.

Kopa says the reality was the opposite. It contacted HSBC and Santander immediately and reported that neither would custody written documents. Kopa later reported contacting every licensed UK bank and Santander Portugal without finding a bank willing to provide the required service. Other explored arrangements involved third-party escrow rather than custody by a European bank.

Kopa therefore alleges that Balkan imposed, or permitted Millennium to impose, a condition that Balkan knew—or was at least reckless as to whether—Kopa could ever satisfy. The basis for that allegation is that Balkan switched the transaction to hard-copy delivery, obtained release of the remaining fee and required a full-performance acknowledgement without first identifying a bank that had agreed to custody the hard-copy instrument. Nahaboo could not name such a bank when the problem arose, despite having described the service as routine. Balkan should be invited to identify any European bank it had verified would accept this instrument on the required terms.