It would be more convenient for the reader to have a uniform numbering system for the whole prospectus, but that would require rejiggering the core's pagination for each takedown of securities. The core invariably carries its own date, which can be earlier than the supplement's date. This provides a succinct explanation of why the supplement can conflict with and override an earlier core, but should provide little additional comfort. If the core is correct as of its date but materially incorrect at the date of the prospectus, you'd better make sure the supplement supplies the correction. If there's been a major development, cautious lawyers will want to revise the core.
Prospectuses contain lots of defined terms.
It's common for the core and the supplement to each contain its own index of defined terms. That's inconvenient, since the normal expectation is that an index will be at the end. At least you should have a table of contents at the front. I think this practice also goes back to the days when only the core was filed with the registration statement, but I can't see how splitting the table of contents in this way complies with today's rules. Darmstadter is an assistant general counsel at Citigroup in New York City.