“I will continue to accept all responsibilities, honestly”, promises Cristina Ferreira, who has just responded in a statement to the news that the Court of Justice of the District of Lisbon West has decided to execute a certain amount of the assets of the company Amor Ponto. up to 4.7 million euros. In a response published on Instagram, this Tuesday evening, the TVVI presenter recalls that “the process is the field of justice and it should only be judged according to justice”.
Last Tuesday, the presenter spent the entire morning live on the program Two at 10 on TVI without mentioning the news about the execution of the assets and he only responded after 4pm. Without adding new information about the legal case against her with SIC, after breaking the contract with the TV station, the presenter regrets that the trial is no longer in question, but in her “character”. And he declares: “You can never accuse me of having missed my promises.”
Cristina Ferreira wanted to clarify that “the first instance sentence was made by SIC, despite the fact that it was still being appealed and, therefore, it could be reversed”. PÚBLICO contacted SIC about the presenter’s accusations, but has not yet received a response. “This is an initiative of SIC. Only this one and not the court”, emphasizes the presenter, who points the finger at the station, although SIC cannot “enforce the sentence” as she says , but he only asks the court to do it.
The statement ends with the intention to appeal against the sentence already filed by Cristina Ferreira. “Amor Ponto will use the legal mechanism that allows it to suspend this SIC initiative. While we wait patiently for the decision of the appeal that was filed.”
On June 11, the Sintra court ordered Amor Ponto to pay more than 3.3 million euros to SIC for breach of contract with the broadcaster. The presenter appealed against the decision, but did not ask for suspensive effects, and did not present a bond with bank guarantees. This led to the seizure of the company’s assets and the credits, in the present and in the future, that Amor Ponto has which are worth up to 4.7 million euros, including interest already.
Amor Ponto was incorporated in 2008, as Cristina Ferreira, Sociedade Unipessoal and took its current name in 2019, having also been called Cristina Ferreira, Lda. The company has three shareholders: Cristina Ferreira, her father, Antonio Jorge Ferreira, and Docasal Investimentos, a company that also has the same two shareholders.
The process between SIC and Amor Ponto has been ongoing since September 2020, when SIC filed its lawsuit against TVI’s fiction and entertainment director, and the court decided that the contract between the presenter and broadcaster Carnaxide was not freely revocable. Cristina Ferreira left SIC in July of that year, returning to TVI, where she was supposed to be a director and shareholder of Media Capital.
How should public figures manage their public image while dealing with ongoing legal challenges?
Interview between the Time.news Editor and Legal Expert Dr. Clara Mendes
Time.news Editor: Good afternoon, Dr. Mendes. Thank you for joining us to discuss the recent developments involving Cristina Ferreira and the assets execution by the Court of Justice of the District of Lisbon West. Can you provide some context around this case?
Dr. Clara Mendes: Good afternoon! Certainly. Cristina Ferreira, a popular TV presenter, is currently embroiled in a legal dispute with SIC, the television network she previously worked for. The court has decided to execute up to 4.7 million euros from her company, Amor Ponto, which has raised a lot of questions about the implications for Ferreira both legally and personally.
Editor: Ferreira mentioned in her statement that this is a matter of justice and not personal character. How significant is the distinction between the legal ramifications and public perception in such cases?
Dr. Mendes: It’s highly significant. In the legal realm, the focus is on contractual obligations and financial responsibilities, whereas public perception often centers around an individual’s character and integrity. Ferreira’s situation highlights how legal troubles can quickly become a matter of public opinion, especially for public figures. Her insistence on accountability suggests she’s trying to manage her public image while navigating these legal challenges.
Editor: On her program, she chose not to address this issue until later in the day. Why might she have opted for this approach?
Dr. Mendes: There could be several reasons. Firstly, she may have wanted to separate her professional duties from her personal challenges. Discussing the case during a live broadcast could have risked derailing the program’s content. Additionally, she might have been seeking advice on how best to frame her response without jeopardizing her legal standing. Often in such cases, public statements need to be carefully crafted to avoid admitting liability or making potentially damaging comments.
Editor: Cristina claims that SIC initiated the enforcement of the sentence. How does this relate to the legal process of contract disputes and appeals?
Dr. Mendes: In contractual disputes, especially ones involving high-profile personalities, the situation can become quite complex. If Ferreira is appealing the initial ruling, it suggests she believes that the court’s decision can be overturned. However, SIC’s actions to enforce the ruling might lead to questions about whether they are acting prematurely. Typically, until the appeals process is fully resolved, enforcement of a judgment should be put on hold to avoid these complications.
Editor: She also emphasized that criticisms should align with the legal process rather than personal attacks. How can one navigate such public and private discourse during ongoing legal challenges?
Dr. Mendes: What Ferreira is attempting to do is crucial, particularly for someone in her position. She needs to draw a line between her legal obligations and her reputation. Engaging in public discourse about her character versus the facts of the legal case can help protect her public image. This involves focusing on clear, factual statements about the case while avoiding inflammatory language that could escalate the situation.
Editor: As a final question, what advice would you give to public figures who find themselves in similar legal dilemmas?
Dr. Mendes: My advice would be to remain composed and strategic. It’s essential to engage legal counsel early on to navigate the intricacies of both the legal system and public perception. Transparency can be effective, but it must be balanced with caution. Public figures should consider designating a spokesperson to handle media inquiries to shield themselves from the potential emotional toll of direct engagement. This allows them to maintain focus on resolving their legal matters without becoming embroiled in a public relations crisis.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Mendes, for your insights on this complex issue. It seems that the intersection of law and public image can create unique challenges for individuals like Cristina Ferreira.
Dr. Mendes: You’re welcome! It certainly is a delicate balance, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss such an important topic.