NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES: UPDATED REGULATORY AGENCY DISASTER RELIEF RESOURCES AT A GLANCE

BY: HINMAN & CARMICHAEL LLP

UPDATED OCTOBER 23, 2017

The wildfire tragedy spread across four counties over the last two weeks has caused the tragic loss of homes, livelihoods and lives.  As the fires are brought under control the industry is now turning to rebuilding homes and businesses.  The challenges will be many, from potentially billions of dollars in insurance claims to finding contractors, from harvesting grapes to protecting fermenting wine from smoke taint, from helping employees find housing to staffing tasting rooms, restaurants and hotels. Our friends and colleagues are rolling up their sleeves, and so are we. There’s no way around the fact that rebuilding after the wildfires pass will be difficult, expensive and time-consuming, but we know our community will come together to support each other during this difficult time.

As lawyers who serve the alcohol beverage, hospitality and cannabis industries, we offer an updated summary below of some of the main regulatory considerations for industry members, and those who work within these industries especially hit hard by these fires. Unfortunately, our guidance for cannabis businesses, because of the unsettled legal landscape, remains short.

Hinman & Carmichael will be offering free initial consulting services to wineries, breweries, distilleries, restaurants, retailers, resorts, hotels and other alcoholic beverage licensees for any legal issues related to or arising from the fires. In addition, our colleagues at Compli have offered free consultation services for wineries and vineyards seeking relief from the TTB, and our colleagues at Wine Compliance Alliance have offered complimentary assistance to any winery in Sonoma or Napa County seeking relief from the TTB.

ALCOHOL BEVERAGE INDUSTRY RESOURCES AND CONSIDERATIONS

The alcoholic beverage industry, which is regulated by a myriad of federal, state and local agencies, is subject to a plethora of special agency protocols that come into play when disasters strike.   The major agency resources available to industry members at this critical time are summarized below, agency by agency.

Because every retail and production premises is licensed as a structure (with diagrammed premises, including bonds for producers), if a building has burned down or been destroyed, the premises may not still be suitable for operations.  Where and how a licensee can continue operations pending rebuilding (or re-opening, if partial damage occurs) will be an issue for many wildfire victims.  The regulatory agencies should be cooperative and will do their best to waive otherwise inflexible requirements.

California Office of the Governor

Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-43-17 to streamline recovery efforts in communities affected by the wildfires. The order gives the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control discretion to waive the 500-foot limitation and 180-day period for businesses forced to relocate because of the wildfires and discretion to waive transfer fees beyond the time limitations set by law.

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB)

Manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and export warehouse proprietors of alcoholic beverages who experience fire or other casualty losses may be eligible for tax relief from the TTB. Proprietors may make claims with the TTB for the payment of federal excise taxes paid on alcoholic beverages. The TTB is also waiving tax penalties for those affected by the fires.  The Wine Compliance Alliance published a video [link] explaining TTB paperwork requirements.

TTB Resources:

• Waiver of Excise Tax Penalties for Businesses Affect by the California Wildfires: For those unable to file or timely make payment or deposit of excise taxes
• When Disaster Strikes: Guidance on filing claims for payment (refund or allowance of credit) of federal excise taxes paid of alcoholic beverages
• Disaster Relief: Waivers, forms, and other resources
• Napa Earthquake: FAQs: Offers guidance on filing claims for loss, temporary storage, and record keeping after a disaster. This industry guidance FAQ is from the last major natural disaster to strike Napa.  We expect these policies will be initiated for wildfire damage and destruction.

California State Board of Equalization (BOE)

The BOE offers emergency tax and fee relief for business owners and feepayers. An extension of up to three months to file and pay taxes and fees is available for the alcoholic beverage tax and an array of other BOE administered programs (listed here).

BOE Resources:

• Disaster Relief FAQs
• Disaster Relief for Property Taxes
• List of County Assessors and Contact Information

California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC)

As anticipated, the ABC published an advisory for ABC licensed businesses affected by the wildfires. The advisory outlines issues, including business relocation, storage, product damage and returns, fee waivers, tied house exceptions for natural disasters, closure of premises, and more.

ABC Resources:

• North Bay Fires Advisory
• Napa Earthquake-Related Information

California Department of Insurance

For all insurance claims, contact your insurance company or your agent as soon as possible to gather information to file a claim. If partial damage has occurred, take steps to prevent further damage, take photos of the damaged property, and prepare an inventory of the damaged property. If the damage is extensive, you should not return to your homes and businesses until emergency personnel have cleared the area for reentry. If you haven’t been evacuated yet, but the threat still exists, take photos or take a video of your belongings and keep any receipts.

The California Department of Insurance Resources for Business and Homeowners:

• Don’t Get Burned After a Disaster: How to avoid scams and fraud
• Commercial Insurance Guide: Includes loss due to property damage, business interruption, theft, liability, and worker injury
• Residential Property Claims Guide: Includes property damage to homes, personal property, and additional living expenses (e.g., food, transportation, temporary residence)

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Risk Management Agency operates and manages the Federal Crop Insurance. If you have a Federal Crop Insurance policy—which only covers crops, not vines—claims may be made due to direct damage, smoke taint and potentially an inability to harvest.

USDA Resources:

• How to File a Crop Insurance Claim

U.S. Department of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

All alcoholic beverage manufacturers should be registered with the FDA as a “food manufacturer” unless they qualify for a registration exemption.  All registered manufacturers are subject to the FDA’s record-keeping and reporting requirements under the Bioterrorism Act and the newer Food Safety and Modernization Act.  Anyone with production spoilages or losses (whether in production or finished product not yet distributed) should document these in detail by variety or brand name, vintage, volume of product lost or spoiled, and lot numbers, if available.  Stay posted for specific reporting procedures for these losses for each category of alcoholic beverages once the emergency settles.

California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA)

The CDFA has extended the application deadline for the 2018 Specialty Crop Block Grant Program (here).

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

The IRS is providing relief to seven California counties: Butte, Lake, Mendocino, Napa, Nevada, Sonoma and Yuba. In these counties, individuals and businesses have until January 31, 2018 to file certain tax returns and make certain tax payments.

IRS Resources:

• IRS-2017-172 Tax Relief to Victims of California Wildfires
• Tax Relief in Disaster Situations

Other tax resources:

• PwC Federal Disasters & Employer Assistance: California Wildfire Relief

CANNABIS INDUSTRY RESOURCES AND CONSIDERATIONS

The fires are also devastating the cannabis industry.  The timing is especially terrible since we are two and a half months away from the launch of state licensing.  Our best suggestion for those still planning to seek state licensing after this tragedy is to protect the records and documentation required for temporary licensing, including business records, local jurisdiction authorizations or permits, and deeds or leases (information about temporary licenses here).  As local and state licensing is about to come online, many of the same concerns regarding areas that may no longer be suitable for their intended and permitted use will apply to the cannabis space, as discussed above for alcohol licensees.

While there are unfortunately not the same government or insurance resources available as for the alcohol and hospitality industry (for example, cannabis cultivators and manufacturers do not qualify for crop insurance or federal emergency relief funds), the cannabis community is turning out to support those in need.  Merry Jane has collected a number crowdfunding campaigns that have launched to support members of the industry affected by the fires, including one organized by CalGrowers to help affected farmers.

Looking for ways to donate, volunteer, or deliver supplies?

The Wine Institute has published a list (here) on how to help, including links to donate to local disaster relief funds. The Bay Area’s www.7x7.com also has an extensive list detailing where you can make donations, deliver supplies, and which organizations are seeking volunteers (updated daily here).  For the animal lovers among you, donations can be directed towards Jameson Animal Rescue Ranch here.

What else can we all do?  Buy wine from the affected wineries, and schedule holiday events at Napa, Sonoma and Mendocino wineries.

     -  The Team at Hinman & Carmichael LLP

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES: REGULATORY AGENCY DISASTER RELIEF RESOURCES AT A GLANCE

BY: HINMAN & CARMICHAEL LLP

We write this post with heavy hearts as wildfires continue to rage throughout Northern California, affecting many of our clients, friends and colleagues. The wildfire tragedy continues to cause the loss of homes, livelihoods and lives. We express deep love and gratitude to our devastated but resilient Northern California community and to the firefighters, law enforcement and first responders who are on the front lines.

As lawyers who serve the alcohol beverage, hospitality and cannabis industries, we offer a summary below of some of the regulatory considerations for industry members, and those who work within these industries especially hit hard by these fires. Unfortunately, our guidance for cannabis businesses will be even shorter, because of the unsettled legal landscape.

There’s no way around the fact that rebuilding after the wildfires pass will be difficult, expensive and time-consuming, but we know our community will come together to support each other during this difficult time.

ALCOHOL BEVERAGE INDUSTRY RESOURCES AND CONSIDERATIONS

The alcoholic beverage industry, which is regulated by a myriad of federal, state and local agencies, is subject to a plethora of special agency protocols that come into play when disasters strike. The major agency resources available to industry members at this critical time are summarized below, agency by agency.

Because every retail and production premises is licensed as a structure (with diagrammed premises, including bonds for producers), if a building has burned down or been destroyed, the premises may not still be suitable for operations. Where and how a licensee can continue operations pending rebuilding (or re-opening, if partial damage occurs) will be an issue for many wildfire victims. We expect the regulatory agencies will be cooperative and will do their best to waive otherwise inflexible requirements whenever possible.

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB)

Manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and export warehouse proprietors of alcoholic beverages who experience fire or other casualty losses may be eligible for tax relief from the TTB. Proprietors may make claims with the TTB for the payment of federal excise taxes paid on alcoholic beverages. The TTB is also waiving tax penalties for those affected by the fires.

TTB Resources:

• Waiver of Excise Tax Penalties for Businesses Affect by the California Wildfires: For those unable to file or timely make payment or deposit of excise taxes
• When Disaster Strikes: Guidance on filing claims for payment (refund or allowance of credit) of federal excise taxes paid of alcoholic beverages
• Disaster Relief: Waivers, forms, and other resources
• Napa Earthquake: FAQs: Offers guidance on filing claims for loss, temporary storage, and record keeping after a disaster. This industry guidance FAQ is from the last major natural disaster to strike Napa. We expect these policies will be initiated for wildfire damage and destruction.

California State Board of Equalization (BOE)

The BOE offers emergency tax and fee relief for business owners and feepayers. An extension of up to three months to file and pay taxes and fees is available for the alcoholic beverage tax and an array of other BOE administered programs (listed here).

BOE Resources:

• Disaster Relief FAQs
• Disaster Relief for Property Taxes
• List of County Assessors and Contact Information

California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC)

The ABC requires licensees to conduct business on licensed premises, keep records available for inspection, and use their license (for example, wholesalers must make at least one sale to retailers every 45 days). But what happens if your business and records are damaged or destroyed and you can’t conduct business as usual? In the coming days, we anticipate the ABC will release fire-related guidance to assist licensees with the destruction caused by the wildfires. Until that time, licensees may find the ABC’s Napa earthquake-related information a useful resource, as it contains information related to the relocation of business operations, storage, breakage, returns, and tied house exceptions for natural disasters (here).

California Department of Insurance

For all insurance claims, contact your insurance company or your agent as soon as possible to gather information to file a claim. If partial damage has occurred, take steps to prevent further damage, take photos of the damaged property, and prepare an inventory of the damaged property. If the damage is extensive, you should not return to your homes and businesses until emergency personnel have cleared the area for reentry. If you haven’t been evacuated yet, but the threat still exists, take photos or take a video of your belongings and keep any receipts.

The California Department of Insurance Resources for Business and Homeowners:

• Don’t Get Burned After a Disaster: How to avoid scams and fraud
• Commercial Insurance Guide: Includes loss due to property damage, business interruption, theft, liability, and worker injury
• Residential Property Claims Guide: Includes property damage to homes, personal property, and additional living expenses (e.g., food, transportation, temporary residence)

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Risk Management Agency operates and manages the Federal Crop Insurance. If you have a Federal Crop Insurance policy—which only covers crops, not vines—claims may be made due to direct damage, smoke taint and potentially an inability to harvest.

USDA Resources:

• How to File a Crop Insurance Claim

U.S. Department of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

All alcoholic beverage manufacturers should be registered with the FDA as a “food manufacturer” unless they qualify for a registration exemption. All registered manufacturers are subject to the FDA’s record-keeping and reporting requirements under the Bioterrorism Act and the newer Food Safety and Modernization Act. Anyone with production spoilages or losses (whether in production or finished product not yet distributed) should document these in detail by variety or brand name, vintage, volume of product lost or spoiled, and lot numbers, if available. Stay posted for specific reporting procedures for these losses for each category of alcoholic beverages once the emergency settles.

California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA)

The CDFA has extended the application deadline for the 2018 Specialty Crop Block Grant Program (here).

CANNABIS INDUSTRY RESOURCES AND CONSIDERATIONS

The fires are also devastating the cannabis industry. The timing is especially terrible since we are two and a half months away from the launch of state licensing. Our best suggestion for those still planning to seek state licensing after this tragedy is to protect the records and documentation required for temporary licensing, including business records, local jurisdiction authorizations or permits, and deeds or leases (information about temporary licenses available here). As local and state licensing is about to come online, many of the same concerns with regards to areas that may no longer be suitable for their intended and permitted use will apply to the cannabis space, as discussed above for alcohol licensees.

While there are unfortunately not the same types of government or insurance resources available as for the alcohol and hospitality industry (for example, cannabis cultivators and manufacturers do not qualify for crop insurance or federal emergency relief funds), the cannabis community is turning out to support those in need. Merry Jane has collected a number crowdfunding campaigns that have launched to support members of the industry impacted by the fires, including one organized by CalGrowers to help impacted farmers.

Looking for ways to donate, volunteer, or deliver supplies?

The Wine Institute has published a list (here) on how to help, including links to donate to local disaster relief funds. The Bay Area’s www.7x7.com also has an extensive list detailing where you can make donations, deliver supplies, and which organizations are seeking volunteers (updated daily here). For the animal lovers among you, donations can be directed towards Jameson Animal Rescue Ranch here.

- The Team at Hinman & Carmichael LLP

Soon to come to your Local Supermarket– Instant Redeemable Coupons of the digital age!

New technology is difficult to use in the alcoholic beverage industry because old laws and regulations don’t accommodate new ideas. Today, however, we report a feel-good story.

Last year (2016) Governor Brown signed SB-1032, which prohibited wine supplier licensees from offering supplier-funded instant rebate coupons (“$1 Off at the register!”) at retail accounts. This brought wine suppliers into promotional equality with beer suppliers, who lost instant rebates in 2014.  Point of sale instant rebates, it was argued, benefitted large suppliers at the expense of smaller, craft producers.  Large retailer demand for IRC programs as a condition of carrying the product also worried the supplier tier.  Dueling IRC’s were increasingly becoming a very expensive competitive weapon.  The regulatory concern was that retailer redemption practices were prone to abuse because the redemptions went through the retailer.

This year, the California Legislature, recognizing that new technologies justify amendments to existing laws dealing with marketing promotions, added digital rebates to the list of permitted alcohol supplier marketing tools.  Digital rebates differ from instant rebates in several ways; the most important being that redemption is accomplished without running the money through retail accounts.

On October 2, 2017, Governor Brown approved AB-1722 and it is now law in California.  Business and Professions Code § 25600.3, which defines coupons and outlines what are permissible rebate practices, was amended to include “electronic or digital rebates” in the list of permitted alcohol supplier marketing tools.  The “iBotta bill,” as some call it, refers to one new mobile application that offers electronic digital rebates that can be redeemed during a sale without retailer involvement. We expect there will be more digital coupon vendors very soon.

AB-1722 also closed a promotional work-around in the earlier law that allowed beer and wine suppliers to continue to fund instant rebate coupons for non-alcohol products.*  New section 25600.3 now refines the definition of “coupon” to include a discount on the purchase of any item, whether it is an alcoholic beverage, or not.

Electronic digital rebates are a new and exciting tool for consumer engagement, and we expect more tools of this nature to come into existence as the technology to bring suppliers and consumers together at the point of sale develops. Think about the act of scanning a register receipt resulting in a consumers account being credited for a significant portion of the purchase price. Coupon clipping will be ancient history.

The new world of digital coupon clipping begins on January 1, 2018.

*We’ve received a few questions on whether this amendment impacts spirits suppliers, and their ability to offer cross-promotional instant rebate coupons for non-alcoholic products.  Spirits suppliers can breathe a sigh of relief, as their privileges remain unchanged after this refinement of the definition of “coupon.” Spirits suppliers are still permitted to offer “discount[s] or rebate[s] on the purchase of any item so long as no nonalcoholic beer, beer, malt beverages, or wine products are advertised or promoted by these licensees in connection with the discount or rebate.” Business and Professions Code Section 25600.3(c)(4)(B).

The License Piggyback Dilemma – If it Sounds Too Good to be True, it Probably is

However one happens upon the wine industry (love of wine, retirement from a lucrative profession into the countryside to grow premium wine grapes or just good luck), the subject of doing business in a regulated space becomes an issue sooner rather than later. Wine production and sales are subject to a dizzying mix of regulation at the federal and state level, enough to frighten even the most dedicated and well-funded. While regulation cannot be avoided, many people figure there must be an easier way to get started than by locating a facility and applying for the complicated licenses and permits.

Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. This blog post explores the dangers inherent in many of the common work-around solutions brought to us. Do these questions sound familiar?

“I don’t have licenses of my own, but can’t I just use a winery’s licenses to make my wine and get the products to market?”

“I sell a winery my grapes and they make the wine and sell it. Can’t I just have them use my name on the bottle, sell the wine and we split the profits?”

“I have my grapes custom crushed. Can’t I just use the winery’s DTC permits to service the 30 plus states in which I may not legally sell wine?”

These questions all refer to “license piggyback” scenarios, where one winery’s licenses are being used to incubate a new wine brand, or leverage markets foreclosed to non-licensees.

The Problematic Relationship

The problem with any “license piggyback” solution is the same problem facing third party provider (TPP) marketing websites: you cannot “avail” yourself of the privileges of someone else’s license. Specifically, licensees cannot share profits with non-licensees, and unlicensed persons and entities cannot take title to, or sell, alcoholic beverages without a license appropriate to the relationship. This has been ruled on by the California ABC and the New York SLA, and the principle is universal throughout the US alcohol regulatory system. Combine these restrictions with the proliferation of new brands from people using the marketing power of their famous names, and wineries who blithely provide services to their grape growing friends and neighbors for a cut of the profits, and it is easy to see how problematic relationships are born from well-intentioned business deals.

Custom Crush Arrangements

Brand owners are sometimes new to the alcohol beverage industry and its morass of legal restrictions, and do not realize that they need a license to sell wine. They sign standard custom crush agreements with wineries, which mandate somewhere in the fine print (too long; didn’t read) that the brand owner have the licenses to take title to the product. The winery doesn’t follow up, the brand owner cuts a check and moves product to a warehouse, then sells it either direct to consumers, or to a distributor and back into the three tier-system. If the winery allows its license to be used, it has made an unlawful sale and the brand owner has engaged in the purchase and sale of wine without a license. Those are criminal acts under the express terms of the California ABC Act. That is not good for peace of mind or (maybe, we could be wrong about this) running for political office.

Wineries should make sure that their custom crush clients have licenses to take title to the product wineries manufacture for them as part of the vetting process during contract negotiations (either that or they intend to drink the wine themselves, or give it away).

For brand owners, custom crush agreements are necessary if the plan is to obtain licenses to sell the wine at wholesale, or direct to consumers such as with the Type 17/20 license combination in California. If the goal is ultimately to become an alternating proprietor (AP) with a winery license, or an actual winery, we recommend this approach for brand incubation before committing to production equipment and the costs and complexities of an AP or a facility.

For the scenario where a custom crush 17/20 intends to take advantage of the winery’s DTC permits, the relationships between the parties must be carefully structured to operate within the confines of the law, with the winery retaining title to the wine shipped under its permits, and the 17/20 acting as a TPP. This requires a good, clear, contract. A good contract provides a mechanism to not only resolve disputes between the parties, it prevents an aggrieved party in a later dispute from claiming that the underlying relationship was unlawful and therefore the contract between the parties is unenforceable.

Full Service Route to Market Contracts

Sometimes, wineries themselves are not aware of the limitations on their own license privileges and their relationships with non-licensees. We have seen well intentioned wineries offer their clients a full suite of services, including winemaking, brand consulting and turn-key route to market strategies for a cut of the profits from wine sales.

The tricky aspect of these relationships is that ABC has not drawn a clear line distinguishing lawful arrangements from unlawful ones. Wineries can provide services to licensees and non-licensees alike, including brand strategy and consulting services. Wineries cannot perform services that amount to renting out their licenses, and they cannot share profits with non-licensees. Therefore, the extent to which these contracts are lawful is fact specific, and depends on what exactly the contract terms specify.

Licensing/Marketing Agreements

Another approach for brand owners is to never take title to the product, and instead sign Licensing/Marketing Agreements with wineries. These agreements (variations of the TPP relationship) license the brand owner’s intellectual property to the winery, and the brand owners receive compensation for providing marketing services to the winery to facilitate distribution of the products. The arrangements are a good choice for those who cannot hold supplier/wholesale tier licenses, or those who don’t want to bother. There are, however, limitations with this approach. Principally, the prohibition on profit sharing with non-licensees necessitates careful structuring of the compensation portion of the agreements between brand owners and wineries to ensure they don’t cross the regulatory line.

Enforcement

And now the $64,000 question, is this an enforcement priority for ABC? What is the potential liability? Regarding the former question, we are seeing California ABC investigate these relationships with increasing frequency, and we expect more inquiries into these relationships as ABC and the federal authorities understand the number of problematic relationships out there.

The potential liability question is more complicated. ABC has jurisdiction over licensed wineries, and actions against winery licensees have taken the form of fines and license suspensions (revocation is on the table for egregious or deliberate violators). ABC, however, does not have jurisdiction over non-licensees, and would have to engage another agency such as the Attorney’ General’s office to prosecute non-licensees for the sale of alcohol without a license (a criminal misdemeanor in California). This makes it harder for ABC to follow-up on non-licensees, but they could find an example as a warning to the industry. No one wants to be that example.

The other form of liability is contractual responsibility for the failed relationship; and damages. While who a court would find liable if a dispute occurs is a fact specific exercise, that one party was licensed and the other wasn’t would probably resolve for the unlicensed party on the theory that the licensee (as the one responsible for compliance) should have known better.

Another complicated question arises if the unlicensed entity becomes licensed, or is seeking licenses, when the ABC comes knocking. ABC’s Trade Enforcement Unit could hold up license issuance pending an investigation, could ultimately deny licensure based on the unlawful relationship and could file an accusation after the license issues to seek fines and penalties short of revocation.

Best Practices

As with most business endeavors, there is no one-size fits all approach regarding contract winemaking, AP agreements, TPP agreements or brand development. Every situation is unique, and requires a different structure to best utilize the strengths of each party to the venture. Each relationship must be considered carefully in the context of the parties’ goals to comply with the regulations applicable to licensees, and to the prohibitions against selling alcohol without a license.

That all being true, if the new wine industry member takes the time to analyze the goals it has against properly structured relationships, the process will be relatively painless (lawyers and regulators notwithstanding), and should be a lot fun.

A timely message from our Florida colleagues on the tied house laws, the three-tier system and the need for reform

 One of our close friends in Florida, Marbet Lewis of Greenspan Marder, recently penned an article about the need for reform of the tied-house laws in Florida. Marbet focused on the craft brewing industry and the difficulty of the small producer to develop its business in a time of overall consumer desire to experience authentic small brands.  She was speaking about craft distillers and craft brewers in Florida, but she could just as well be speaking about small wine, beer and spirits producers in California, Texas, Illinois, New York and throughout the US. 

While the industry benefits from the basic framework and ideology of tied house laws, our modern economy demands more targeted exemptions and special classifications to both promote and regulate growth – Marbet Lewis.

Marbet’s thesis is that our world of outdated tied house laws interferes with the healthy inter-tier relationships that benefit consumers and the industry; this includes access to investment capital and (especially in craft distilling) direct and effective access to customers via marketing channels and direct to consumer permits.  Her call for targeted “exemptions” as versus the system of special interest exemptions should resonate with all forward-thinking industry members.

 Enjoy Marbet’s fine article here.