EP 1083 Part 3 of 5 | COMSA Says Benecke Pressured Them to Keep Shipping Coffee (Benecke and COMSA) | Map It Forward
Advertising Sponsor
Want to join our Map It Forward Monthly Community Discussion Group? Head to https://patreon.com/mapitforward to join the community by signing up for the "Roasted Coffee" tier for 20 USD per month. Find other like-minded people in the coffee industry. This community is open to all stakeholders in the coffee industry
Episode Description
This is episode 3 of a five-part series on The Daily Coffee Pro Podcast by Map It Forward with Rodolfo Peñalba, General Manager of COMSA, and Cristian Dubón, a board member and coffee producer from the cooperative in Honduras.
In Part 2, we examined how COMSA finances the coffee it exports and why the cooperative depends on importers paying once contractual documents are delivered.
In this episode, we reach the point where COMSA says it began realising that something was wrong.
According to Rodolfo and Cristian, Benecke began taking longer than usual to pay for coffee during 2025. Cristian says COMSA’s normal payment experience was approximately seven to fourteen days after shipping documents were supplied, with some buyers paying even faster.
With Benecke, those payments began taking significantly longer.
COMSA says payment delays continued through the first half of 2025, and that it raised the issue when people connected with J.J. Darboven visited COMSA in June.
Rodolfo says COMSA was also told by someone connected with Fairtrade that Benecke was experiencing financial difficulties, although Benecke’s representatives in Honduras reportedly reassured COMSA that the problems were temporary and that payment would continue.
Later in the year, COMSA asked Benecke to move some planned September shipments to December because high coffee prices and financing constraints were making it difficult for the cooperative to assemble the required volume.
According to Rodolfo, Clemens von Storch responded that COMSA needed to fulfil the contracts or risk being removed from the J.J. Darboven project.
COMSA says it then made a major effort to comply.
Rodolfo says the cooperative borrowed heavily from its banks and sent the final group of coffee, with 11 containers in that shipment representing approximately USD 2.5 million.
Payment did not arrive as expected.
By mid-October, COMSA says Clemens told them Benecke was experiencing banking problems and asked them to wait until November.
When November arrived, COMSA says it was asked to wait again.
COMSA also says it did not receive direct notice from Benecke that insolvency proceedings had begun. Instead, it learned about the situation through another contact.
By the time of this interview, COMSA says approximately USD 2.7 million remained outstanding.
This episode raises one of the most important questions in the series:
What did Benecke know about its own financial position when it was still asking COMSA to fulfil these contracts?
COMSA’s testimony does not itself answer that question definitively, but it establishes the timeline that now needs to be examined against contracts, shipment records, payment communications and Benecke’s insolvency documents.
In Part 4, we look at what happened after Benecke entered insolvency and how COMSA became a creditor in Germany.
You can connect with COMSA here:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/1c5tTT89Rw/?mibextid=wwXIfr
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/comsa_oficial/
Website: https://www.comsa.hn
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/comsa-oficial
Editorial Note:
This episode forms part of Map It Forward’s ongoing examination of the Benecke Coffee controversy. The statements made by Rodolfo Peñalba and Cristian Dubón represent COMSA’s account of events. Some claims discussed in this series remain disputed or have not yet been independently verified. Map It Forward has sought comment from relevant parties and will continue to update its coverage if additional information or evidence becomes available. Where allegations, interpretations or claims are discussed, they should not be understood as findings of legal liability or wrongdoing.