I can see why someone might interpret the regulation this way. But if you stop and carefully analyze the requirement you'll see that ongoing disclosure in statements is not required.
Last edited by Tony Wade; 08/27/04 06:49 PM.
Sec. 229.57(b)(1) governs the distribution of the notice prescribed by Sec. 229.57(a) to consumers who have items returned with their statements. Take a close look at how Sec. 229.57(b)(1)(a) is worded. It says that the notice must be provided no later than the first regularly scheduled communication with the customer after October 28, 2004. This effectively means with the first statement sent after October 28. The key word here is "first." Notice what the regulation does not say. It does not say the notice must be included with the "second" statement or "subsequent" statements. It really means what it says: the "first" statement and only the first statement.
Also, Ken is absolutely correct. The regulation does not prescribe a short form disclosure. Sounds to me like your presenter is borrowing from Reg Z and Reg E.
Finally, you also need to keep in mind that Sec. 229.57(b)(2) applies only when customers receive substitute checks outside of the periodic statement delivery process. Again, there is no obligation to include the notice with subsequent periodic statements under this section of the regulation because this section of the regulation clearly does not apply to periodic statements.
Does this make sense?
"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." ~ Oscar Wilde