Legal discourse about business entities has displayed a logical fallacy regarding the consequences of corporate separateness. A fallacy of equivocation occurs when a term is used with one meaning in the premise and with another meaning in the conclusion. Legal personality undoubtedly provides a separate—in the sense of distinct—nexus for the imputation of legal rights and duties. This, however, does not mean that corporations are or should be treated as legally separate—in the sense of insulated—from shareholders in all contexts. Moreover, legal insulation between corporations and shareholders for some purposes (e.g., limited liability) does not necessarily entail insulation for other purposes (e.g., the application of a contractual or regulatory scheme). In effect, there is significant, if varying, permeability between the legal spheres of corporations and shareholders across different areas of law, including corporate law. Rather than a nonconductor that always isolates the legal spheres of the corporation and related parties, legal personality operates as a semi-permeable membrane. Nevertheless, the recurrent fallacy of complete corporate separateness has obscured and hampered the development of legal doctrine in several contexts.