Recruitment firm Agility goes into receivership

Best to contract through a multi-national, too many local agencies in the market without financial backing.

If you would be prepared to talk to me about the problems this receivership has left you in please contact me on lcraymer@nbr.co.nz

Unfortunately it's just another of the many additional risks independent contractors run - as we all know, contractors choose jobs - employers choose agencies. May be employers should be more dilligent with their supplier selection as situations like this do affect them too !

There are insurances than can be taken out for this type of thing , although the majority of contractors feel it is too expensive and when this happens are left out of pocket

Agility is a victim of the the banking industry's lending policies. Alan Bollard cut the rate today by 150 basis points but you can be sure that the last rate cut and also reduced risk experienced by the bank through the government guarantee isn't being passed onto our entrepreneurs. A great provider in NZ is gone.

I'd have to agree - Agility consistently brought the best contractors and more recently permanent placements to our business. There is a big gap between where they were and any of the other players in NZ I've attempted to hire from.

A great service does require great captial to provide it (quality people cost), but without the protection that should have been there everyone is now a loser, contractors and clients... so not so great after all... I am looking at losing 2 months salary....

who writes the positive comments must be someone who is not affected by Agility's actions and ignores to acknowledge their mistakes, or Agility management themselves.

There is absolutely no way to blame current global crisis for this, even if it was the trigger.
The IT contracting model is simple: client pays for services provided by consultants - agency gets commission, rest is paid to the service provider (me and other "contractors"). The fact that the money is "in transit" on their account, doesn't mean they can use it for whatever reasons. You might argue, but this is the same as GST collection. No matter what - collected GST does not belong to me it is owned by IRD. Same with our money. Agility had to segregate it from their main books and not mix it up with their other affairs. Additionally, there was never risk for Agility - clients had to pay the fee prior to Agility's pay date.
Markets and commercial environment are changing all the time. A characteristic of a good entrepreneurship is an ability to adjust accordingly and manage risk accordingly. This did not happen at Agility. Intentionally or not, their company management has resulted in damages to hundred of individuals and businesses.

Bottom line - I am happy for you mate, if you had a great experience with Agility in the past, but think twice before doing business with them again (if they return to the market under a different name).

Ironically, the Bank, which made wrong judgment with the act of lending money to the Agility Management, will collect the money back. And the former Agility shareholder (that was paid off) is having a good time in Europe now.

No - the former management is not in Europe - receivers require you to be on site while they wind up the business - use your noodle. Yes - the bank that most likely withdrew its funding causing the collapse is likely to get its cash back. Yes - this is what the government guarantee for the banks is expected to protect the New Zealand economy against. Yes - receivers are making a lot of money right now as banks shrink the corporate credit supply and drive business to the wall. Read the articles on this website and get your fact straight.

Hm. You get your facts focused! Discussions about macro economy won’t help anyone here in a short term. In this case it is better to look at the facts from micro economy perspective. Namely, who allowed the bank to lend money, as a secured creditor, on assets that are, as mentioned from the receiver (read the bank’s advocate) from unsecured creditors? From a macro perspective, we all know what is happening in the world from the wrong banking management decisions. I believe that the government should start looking at the BNZ work and ethics and completely check this case. In fact I would urge the government to do that immediately!
What if:
I am a banker and I make deal with employment agency that has huge turnover. From the other side we have Agency Management that has assets such as house, car and office material (we know the current status on the property market) and the remarkable contracts. Alleluia!!! I, the banker, am putting instrument in October and in December I identify that the employment market is going down and act fast to recover my investment. There are some gaps in this story, left intentionally for the government to identify, but the main case is there.