agreed well said Two Sheds

I thought if a band member left, they forfeited the rights to any future profits, the name etc?

That's probably the most common scenario, but it depends.

In this case, Hooky is still a director of the "old" NO company Vitalturn, which owns the name "New Order" as a trademark. But the other three have a controlling share of Vitalturn and they licenced the trademark to a new company, New Order Ltd.

Hooky is arguing that either this was unlawful or that the price (5% of NO Ltd's profits, it seems) was too low.

BTW, I found out from googling that Hooky tried to register "New Order Ltd" as a trademark in 2011. Now that's krafty...

Interesting. On the basis of what we know, let's lay a few things out.

2007 : PH leaves. Says band split. Band disagree.

2007-2011 : BS, SM, and PC have Bad Lieutenant, and GG has cancer. Not surprising there isn't a New Order, really.

2007-now : PH says lots of unpleasant things in the press.

2011 : SM, GG, and BS formed New Order Now Limited (NON) to reflect new and future New Order activity. GG gets all clear from cancer so rejoins. Vitalturn still exists and administers revenue from activity of New Order dating to 2011. NON Limited administers future activity going forward (shows, records, etc.). 5% of NON revenue is paid to Vitalturn, which splits things equally, hence 1.25%.

2014 : PH says he's an oppressed minority in a partnership. ( https://en.wikipedia.org...i/Shareholder_oppression )

2011-2015 : New Order have grossed £7.8m turonver, averaging around £2.1m per annum and around 25 shows (ish) a year. *

2010-2015 : PH tours his celebration of Joy Division / New Order shows, averaging 80ish gigs a year.

2015 : PH sues NO for not paying him enough from NON to VT.

My layman's view is -

Apparently historical revenue, royalties, licensing for merchanise and Joy Division plimsolls, and so forth for JD + NO band activity 1977-2010 averages approx £1m per year. Ifthis is wholly paid to Vitalturn (and I don't see why it wouldn't), each member 'earns' around £250k per annum, less operating costs. GG and PC may be paid less, given that neither was a full member for the entire period, and PC was made a full member circa 2004.

Additionally, if 2011-onwards activity is administered by NON, then how BS, GG, SM, PC & TC divide the money up is up to them. I imagine BS, GG, and SM are majority shareholders (let's say 25% each), and PC, TC are minority shareholders (lets say 10% each) to reflect the late contribution, with 5% to Vitalturn, which in turn is 1.25% to Hook. However New Order are the band that also have to fund all their activities. Road crews, touring, travel, flights, hotels, visas etc are by no mean cheap. So let's say NO operate at a 10% profit (or, around £730,000 profit over the last few years). PH gets 1.25% of the total current New Order revenue, and he isn't paying any operating costs for current New Order activity, which is generating the profit he is taking a slice of. Therefore, by my estimation £250k pa (royalties from Vitalturn historical account) + 1.25% of £7.8m/four years = £2.15m therefore should equal around £24,375 pa, so a gross PH income from 'legacy' activity of around £274k pa.

This is all speculation of course.

Plus the profits he makes from touring The Light. Does he pay New Order 1.25% of The Lights gross revenue to reflect the commercial advantage and value the New Order & JD brand has made to contributing to his current commercial profile? If New Order pay 5% to VT on a legacy basis (of which PH gets 1.25% being one quarter of the band) then surely PH should pay 3.75% of The Light Ltd to New Order to reflect their contribution (being three qarters of the band)? I doubt that happens.

None of this reflects the reputational damage inflicted upon New Order by Hook's very public, and very vitriolic, statements which have damaged the brand.

Personally, and this is just my personal opinion, New Order Now Ltd should pay Vitalturn 10% of profits (not turnover) to reflect the brand status at the time of New Order recommencing activity in 2011. Which would make PH's payments from VT 2.5% of the profts, not 1.25%. The 90% retained by NON reflects the risk taken by New Order and commercial investment made, in order to generate a profit through live performances.

Vitalturn should - and again, I am by no mean a lawyer - be responsible for all band income for activity from 1977-2010, and also reciept of publishing for all songs written by / with Hook, so Hook gets his requisite share of royalties from "Live At The Troxy", "Bestival" etc (for writing only). If band income pa for 1977-2010 comes to £1m then, once administration costs are taken into account, that feels like a division of around 25% each. Well, slightly less, as Stephen Hague, Arthur Baker, John Robie, and Keef Allen may have writing credits on the odd song.

Clear as mud! An out of court settlement beckons.

p.s. you can wake up now. x

Edited by user 04 December 2015 12:26:26(UTC)  | Reason: dodgy html

Mark, if you want to, you can find lots of pdfs by searching for the companies on companies house (it's New Order Ltd, not New Order Now, though). Some of them come up blank, however.

It looks like only G, S and B are directors of the new company and there is no company covering JD unless it is Vitalturn, but then you would expect DC to be a director and she is not.

Why not get the Vatican involved: Saint Bernard!

Hooky is lucky he's even getting royalties from everything post 2011.

And what's all these rumors in medias about Bernard could face jail time for this nonsense? Is this for real or just scare tactic bullying by the strictly pro-Hooky people or Hooky? I cannot even fathom why anything like this could result in that. I hope nothing like that happens. :(

I think they need to just settle out of court, but sadly think Hooky will just want to keep dragging this on for the sake of it. :(

Edited by user 05 December 2015 00:13:20(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

YAWN

I found that simple enough to follow.

One could argue this highly publicized court case is actually damaging the New Order "brand".

Even if his case is successful, he'll have lost. He'll be seen as someone who dragged the band through the mud while demanding a share of the current success that he's had fuck all to do with.

Please tell me they can't put him in jail for this, right? :( any law buffs out there to give 2 cents?
This whole thing has me sad and I only just started hearing this rumor... it broke my heart. I personally don't see how any of it could be criminal. I thought this was a civil court case? But the thing with hooky accusing he was unlawfully whatever the other thing was makes no sense cos I REALLY doubt the band would do anything purposefully illegal they are very smart people and probably sought legal consult when they made any decisions. i cant see otherwise.

Is it that Hooky is refusing to accept an out of court settlement??

Not likely at all. It's a civil not criminal case about distibution of wealth. The band (N.O.) would've undoubtedly paid specialist lawyers to give them assurances they could successfully trade as New Order without Hook and the lawyers would have had a duty of care to ensure that Hook was, legally at least, recognised for the past contribution (hence the 5%).

There's a fascinating interview with Mike Joyce about The Smiths case. http://themouthmagazine.com/2015/12/03/mike-joyce/ His lawyer assured him that "All these cases get sorted out on the court steps". I think N.O. would be making a strategic error if they didn't make a pre-court offer, eve if HOok rejects it out of hand. Then again, I think Hook expects to get 25% of everything the band ever do in future whilst he sits at home, and well, that's never going to happen. I doubt any court would see it as reasonable for him to get 25% of the band's future money for 0% of the band's future work.