New Order and Peter Hook dispute ends

New Order have reached a "full and final settlement" with former bassist Peter Hook after a long-running legal dispute over royalties.
The 61-year-old musician claimed to be £2.3 million out of pocket after he quit the band he co-founded in 2007, and filed a lawsuit against his former bandmates Bernard Sumner and Stephen Morris and Gillian Morris in 2015.
However, on Wednesday (20.09.17), the trio revealed their lawsuit had ended after years of back and forth over various issues involving the New Order and Joy Division band names and how much Hook is paid for using them.
Hook, Sumner and Morris were all members of seminal indie band Joy Division and went on to create New Order in 1980 after lead singer Ian Curtis died of suicide.
In a statement posted on their website, the band wrote: "New Order announce that today, a full and final settlement has been reached in the long running disputes with their former bassist Peter Hook.
"The disputes were based upon Hook’s use of various New Order and Joy Division assets on merchandising and in the promotion of shows by his new band, and the amount of money he receives from the use of the name New Order by his former colleagues since 2011.
"The Joy Division and New Order names mean a great deal to so many of the fans, and the band felt it important to protect the legacy.
"With these issues now dealt with, Bernard, Stephen and Gillian can continue to do what they do best, make music and perform live. (sic)"
The ‘Blue Monday’ hitmakers previously said they were "disappointed" when Hook – who currently tours as Peter Hook And The Light – accused them of setting up a new company without him to handle the band’s income after he left the group.
They said previously: "Obviously the band are disappointed that Peter is pursuing this claim in this particular way.
"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.
"Not much more we can say as nothing has been decided by the Court on the facts other than he has a right to proceed with the claim, so this matter is still in play."