Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court's ruling on the case involving Hu and five other directors of Smart Micro Display Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. highlights the distinction between the responsibilities of directors and shareholders regarding capital contributions, emphasizing that directors should not bear joint liability for shareholders' unpaid contributions beyond their diligence obligations [2][3][4][18]. Summary by Sections Case Background - The case originated in January 2015 when Smart Micro Display entered bankruptcy due to changes in the business environment, with shareholders owing nearly $5 million in registered capital [3][10]. - The bankruptcy administrator sought joint compensation from the directors for the unpaid contributions, leading to a series of court rulings [3][4]. Legal Proceedings - The initial ruling in 2019 held the directors liable for the full amount due to their failure to fulfill their obligation to urge shareholders to pay their contributions [3][11]. - Following an appeal, the Supreme People's Court accepted the prosecution's appeal, leading to a re-evaluation of the directors' responsibilities [4][18]. Supreme Court's Ruling - The Supreme Court's final ruling determined that three of the directors would only be liable for 10% of the company's losses, reflecting their level of fault rather than imposing joint liability for the entire amount [4][18]. - The ruling clarified that the directors' obligation to urge capital contributions is distinct from the shareholders' obligation to contribute capital, thus preventing the transfer of shareholder liability to directors [16][25]. Implications for Corporate Governance - The case has sparked discussions on the responsibilities of directors in urging capital contributions and the potential risks they face in fulfilling these duties [5][12]. - Legal experts emphasize the need for clear distinctions between the obligations of directors and shareholders to avoid undue burdens on directors [16][25]. Legislative Context - The case occurred before the recent amendments to the Company Law, which now explicitly outlines the responsibilities of directors regarding shareholder contributions [14][22]. - The successful prosecution appeal aligns with the revised Company Law, reinforcing the need for accurate legal interpretations and the protection of corporate governance structures [20][24].

最高人民检察院消息，备受关注的胡某生等6名董事与斯曼特微显示科技（深圳）有限公司（下称"斯曼 特公司"）损害公司利益责任纠纷抗诉案迎来终审判决。最高人民法院采纳检察机关抗诉意见，判令胡 某生等3人作为公司第一届董事会董事，在未尽催缴义务的过错范围内，对公司损失的10%共同承担赔 偿责任，其他3人作为公司第二届董事会董事，不承担赔偿责任。在原再审生效判决中，胡某生等上述6 名董事均须对公司全部损失——股东欠缴的近500万美元出资款——承担连带赔偿责任。 案件就此进入第二次再审程序。最高法开庭审理，最高检院领导出庭，依法发表抗诉意见。之后，最高 检院领导列席最高法审委会会议。今年1月，最高法作出再审判决，采纳检察机关的抗诉意见，改判胡 某生等3名董事就公司10%的损失，共同承担赔偿责任。 "再审判决认定的赔偿责任不是连带责任，而是与其过错相当的、违反勤勉义务的相应责任。"最高检办 案人表示，董事的催缴义务与股东的出资义务性质不同，董事未尽催缴义务所承担的责任，不等同于股 东违反出资义务所应承担的责任。 最高检民事检察厅负责人表示，在案件办理过程中，检察官办案组积极践行"三个善于"理念要求，注重 行使调查核实权，对 ...