I'm not very familiar with the intricacies of the deals done but, looking at that first article you linked to, I read it as:

Vitalturn was owned by Sumner, Hook, Morris & Gilbert and they all had a 25% share.

Sumner, Morris & Gilbert then set up a new company to technically replace Vitalturn (although this company would still exist in some form).
This new company would (presumably) be split as follows - Sumner 31.66%, Morris 31.66%, Gilbert 31.66%, Vitalturn 5% (I say 'presumably'; the article doesn't specify).

So, in theory (and based on what I think the article is saying), the band had the following shares:

Sumner 32.92% (31.67% from the new company + 1.25% from Vitalturn)
Morris 32.92% (31.67% from the new company + 1.25% from Vitalturn)
Gilbert 32.92% (31.67% from the new company + 1.25% from Vitalturn)
Hook 1.25% (1.25% from Vitalturn)

So, that was Hook's point. He was getting much less return from his investment in the 'New Order' brand.

As I understand it (and I might be completely wrong here), is that this new company (and Vitalturn also, for that matter) look after the New Order 'brand' and not just (even?) any new music that is produced by the band or live performances etc.

This brand is something that Hook has had a significant input into.

Obviously Hook should always earn royalties against LPs he appeared on.
However, his (legitimate, IMHO) argument is that, when the band are asked to perform live or appear in magazines / television etc., or in respect of merchandising, all of this is because the band / brand have built up a significant following / status over the years, and he has helped with that. Hook thought that this should be represented in the financial split, with him getting more than 1.25%.

He also has a gripe that the other three decided on this without him (again, he has a point!).

It's technical stuff and I'm sure that we are not party to all the intricacies of it. I also might be completely wrong.

As regards the argument that either 'Hook left' or 'the band split', I guess it all depends on your personal perception.
As I mentioned above, Hook stated the band had split (presumably) without consulting with Steve and Barney (Gillian had already left). Sumner and Morris then issued a statement along the lines of 'we have not split but must assume that Hook no longer wants to be a part of New Order'.

Based on the above, it certainly seems that 'Hook split'.
However, New Order definitely did 'cease' (at least in practice) at that point, with Sumner, Morris and Cunningham adopting the 'Bad Lieutenant' name, writing non-New Order material and touring under this new name. I think Hook could legitimately argue that, because of this, the band had 'split'; else why didn't they continue performing as New Order? In theory, they could've released 'Never Cry Another Tear' under the 'New Order' name (incorporating Chapman and Evans into the line-up). But nope - they made a deliberate action of calling the band a new name.

Then, to make matters worse, when Steve, Barney and Phil decided to reignite 'New Order', they only invited back Gillian, and not Peter. This must've annoyed him somewhat.

For what it's worth, I'm firmly in the Sumner, Morris and Gilbert camp. This is mainly due to the way inglorious way that Hook has conducted himself throughout. But also comes down to my opinion that 'deciding that you don't want to work with the others' doesn't equate to 'the band has split up'.
(NB announcing that 'split' to the press smacks a little of him deciding the future of the band; something that he's annoyed that the rest of the band did with without him - see above!).

However, even though I favour the other three, that doesn't mean to say that Hook doesn't have a point. If he was only receiving 1.25% of the 'New Order' brand (in addition to his usual royalties), this does seem unfair, to say the least. And I think he has a fairly reasonable (though not conclusive) argument that the band 'split'.

It's complicated, ain't it?

Edited by user 17 January 2020 05:26:30(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Well, I don't know if I understand it correctly, but it looks to me that Vitalturn handled the New Order brand and from this company they were each getting a quarter.

Then he believes they set up the new company to do the same thing, but this time they split everything between the three of them, plus a nominal amount getting paid to Vitalturn.

Then the nominal Vitalturn monies were then (correctly) split between the four of them, in line with the agreement of the contract.

As New Order were splitting the Vitalturn monies between the four of them, they are technically not contravening the Vitalturn arrangement. Instead, they are reducing the amount of money that is going to Vitalturn.
Under this arrangement, this would effectively reduce the total of Hooky's proportion to 1.25%, whilst the others got most of the money.

Or that's what's was being argued, at least (or that's how I understand it, based on the article you linked to).

I'm not sure of whether or not Vitalturn or the new company governs earnings generated 'pre' or 'post' split.
As I mentioned earlier, it would appear that it might purely relate to the 'New Order' brand, which Hook has undeniably contributed significantly to. He would presumably still be entitled to any royalties on the money earned on songs he wrote.

But in the case of the 'New Order brand', he believed he should be getting more. For instance, whatever the New Order shop sell, whether these relate to 'pre' or 'post' split releases (i.e. a 'Blue Monday' t-shirt or a 'Music Complete' mug), he has argued that he should be getting a fair proportion of this.

If you think about, it makes sense to not think about things like the 'brand' in terms of 'pre' or 'post' split. He isn't arguing about anything 'pre' split as he presumably got paid correctly for this. But, going forward, he should still be getting something for the brand that he helped to create. After all, New Order are asked to appear on TV programmes or at festivals based on their long history and not just their last (post-Hook) LP.

I'm guessing that this arrangement would also cover sales of the 'Music Complete' LP and accompanying singles.
Although he wouldn't get paid for his work on these releases, he would presumably want paying for his contribution in making the brand as strong as it is.
Whilst it might seem odd for him to be paid for work he didn't contribute physically to, it does make sense. After all, how many people do you think bought the LP based on the premise 'Oh, the new New Order LP is out. I've loved their previous stuff, so I'll give it a listen'? I'd wager a very large proportion of them (being as good an LP as it was probably helped too, mind you). New Order's 'brand' would certainly have helped sales considerably.

I think that other poster on the other group you mentioned has a valid point; it would probably be a lot easier to start a new company with just the three of them than to squeeze Hook out of Vitalturn.

But as I've stressed, all of this is my understanding either based on a) that article you linked to and b) what I've gathered from previous chats with other users here and elsewhere. I personally don't have any inkling as to the mechanisms of the music industry, recording rights, merchandising, music industry litigation or in-depth details of this particular case. So, I could have misunderstood this completely.
To be honest, I've always been a little perplexed by what all the various NO/JD companies were set up to do (i.e. Fractured, Centredate, Vitalturn etc.). I seem to think that someone once explained on these boards but, of course, I've forgotten (it's my age).

So, to sum up, I think, Hooky has potentially has a point.
However, I also like to think (!) that nothing was done by the band members to deliberately screw him out of money. I'm guessing that the members of the band have advisors who came up the various practices adopted.

I guess what it also comes down to is what both parties consider as being a 'fair proportion'. Maybe New Order believed they were paying him a fair proportion. Hooky disagreed (either rightly or wrongly).

Man, I feel kind of dirty now.
I hate thinking of these guys as trying to fiddle each other out of cash.
I'm also kind of annoyed with myself for sounding a bit pro-Hooky in this, especially after his frequent referral of Barney as being a 'Twat' and mainly for his frankly horrible treatment of Gillian.
But, as I said, he possibly has a point in regards to this arrangement.

Edited by user 17 January 2020 13:57:05(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Ahhh. See..the whole "brand" vs trademark vs actual songwriting etc. Royalties confuses me. They have like multiple companies for literally everything, dont they?! Lol!

Ok..I'll respond more in depth to this later. Have to head off.


Thankyou for your input!!
If you find anything more, please do share.

LINK

A settlement was reached and neither side wants to talk about it. There are most certainly confidentiality agreements on file which means neither side CAN talk about it. We don't know the details, and likely never will.

Speculation: Hook still receives his full share of royalties on everything through Lost Sirens, and a small percentage in perpetuity for the band being allowed to use the name New Order. He most certainly was not paying royalties back when he went out touring Joy Division and New Order's music - a band that doesn't exist, and another band he was no longer a member of. Barney, Steve, Gillian, and Phil would have a legitimate claim to royalties off that material they helped write (performance fees, dodgy live albums Hook keeps releasing).

Edited by user 18 January 2020 11:47:36(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

And :

https://www.rollingstone...-over-band-names-198898/


https://www.rollingstone...eter-hook-lawsuit-44534/

When he says transfer of assets, he means the name (the principal asset). Licensed to the new company without his permission and at a rate he disputed (presumably 5%, as 1.25% is a quarter of that).

I know, and agree. I lost almost all respect for hooky in all this, his behavior and nastiness towards gillian especially and greedy, sleazy like shit he did aside from that. Like the forged Ian signature thing and selling that and fake DJing, name calling, so much more. .. but as a fan I'd like to think the band at least was somewhat fair and the higher standing ethical one in the whole drama.
I know they say it's about the music only, but as many of us feel, sometimes the non-music dramas can effect and stain that old joy. Sounds stupid to some, but whatever.

Plus, was just generally curious. As it's still debated on some music things I'm on.

Ooooh. Hows that work then? Then why didn't they just keep with the same company. Seems they have too many companies going. Supposedly other ones from factory and Bemusic etc. Yikes.

When you say use of the name..you mean just touring it?

Also, just curious how you know all this. Was this all released publicly or stuff hooky said?

Thankyou for the clarifications on this. Its confusing as f*k!

PM me if you wanna continue off the board here. Dont wanna piss people off with my off-the side questions lol

Edited by user 19 January 2020 05:21:08(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

https://companycheck.co....TED/companies-house-data

What's this??
Someone sent this to me.

Yeah, but vitalturn % is totally reduced and transferred. In some articles, and hooky (though vague about it), claimed that when they setup the new company, they moved over most of its assets from vitalturn to the new ones, only leaving a 1.25% share split between all 4 members, opposed to 12.5 or 25% (whichever it was) to remain deposited to vitalturn. So when they setup the new one, it was without hooky included in the new company, so hooky only received that 1.25% from the old one..and he claims they took his original % from the old company to increase each of their new % to the new company. So they just supposedly transferred everytging over, leaving him with a way lower % albeit still getting the same amount the others were from the old company but now severely reduced.
Or so, that's how he made it sound. But the band counters he still gets all full share of old royalties.
Unless they mean the "new" full share for vitalturn? Unless hes getting the old royalties from another company they have? I know they have..or had...a few.
That's what I was trying to figure out.

Cos in my opinion... if he retained all original full royalties, at the same % he agreed to back long before the split, but only receives 1.25% of everything the band puts out AFTER the split...then that changes things hugely. And is fair...albeit a bit toooo low. At least for the live performances and the brand name. Not for new stuff they write and record, though.
However, if the band stripped him of his original full that he agreed to royalties he makes on everything he did before the reformation, and taking part of his old % to Increase theirs and leaving the old company almost bare..then that's hugely messed up. And seems very out of character that they'd even attempt such a thing.
The band claims that the 1.25% only applies to stuff they worked on post 2011 ..but wouldnt that be what the new company would be for? And obviously not including hooky? Not sure how the 1.25% is that.
Fans posted, and on here, the theory of how it was split out.
Was their anything published that actually clarified it? Cos hookys comments make no sense and his camp says one thing and barney camp says another.and wondering where everyones getting everything from. Lol

Like perspexorange posted: (which I assume is speculation..but not sure where it comes from cos others said similar):

**** "Vitalturn was owned by Sumner, Hook, Morris & Gilbert and they all had a 25% share.

Sumner, Morris & Gilbert then set up a new company to technically replace Vitalturn (although this company would still exist in some form).
This new company would (presumably) be split as follows - Sumner 31.66%, Morris 31.66%, Gilbert 31.66%, Vitalturn 5% (I say 'presumably'; the article doesn't specify).

So, in theory (and based on what I think the article is saying), the band had the following shares:

Sumner 32.92% (31.67% from the new company + 1.25% from Vitalturn)
Morris 32.92% (31.67% from the new company + 1.25% from Vitalturn)
Gilbert 32.92% (31.67% from the new company + 1.25% from Vitalturn)
Hook 1.25% (1.25% from Vitalturn) *****

However, the band says:
"“The reports so far take a number of things out of context. Peter still, for instance, receives his full share of all back catalogue royalties. This dispute relates only to the share of income he takes from our work without him since 2011,” New Order clarified of the lawsuit"

That's the part that im confused about. So wheres everyone getting the other speculations from and where or how was hooky getting his old original full back catalogue shares he originally agreed to?
If true..then it seems fair. Apart from just being a bit too low of a % for post 2011 work without him. Ie for the name, brand, legacy.

Still on the Barney camp. Just was hoping they at least didnt strip him of his original fair and originally agreed to royalties from everything he did while with them. Just wondering how the 1.25% ties into new stuff. Yet hes not even on the new company. I dont get hiw this stuff works.

"In 2011, current New Order members Bernard Sumner, Stephen Morris, and Gillian Gilbert dissolved their company with Hook, Vitalturn Company Ltd, and formed New Order Ltd to handle licensing of the band’s name and music. As a member of Vitalturn, Hook was a 25% shareholder and received 12.5% in royalties and other income from merchandising and performances. Through New Order Ltd., Hook claims to receive only 1.25%. Update: New Order has clarified in a statement that Hook still receives his full share of back royalties and the 1.25% only applies work without him since 2011."
Just wondering where his old full back royalties were coming from if this were the case between just the 2 companies? Just a question, not accusation.

Edited by user 24 January 2020 12:26:14(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified