If accredited keeps laying people off, How can this deal with lone
Star possibly go through.
I'm selling, theres no future in this stock. This is too shaky. I
can't get burnt anymore.

I too wonder about the layoffs.  Lonestar weakened their case in court
by making a second offer, but   LEND weakened its case by drastically
cutting the company.  It seems like it will give Lonestar a chance to
say they are not "getting what they paid for."

Nevertheless, I am holding until the case settles.

they are buying the loans,they will close 80% of their offices and get
rid of 90% of their staff.

WOw, the minute this puppy hits 9.75 I'm pulling out. I really can't
see it going back up any higher.

This seems intuitive, but in fact it seems to actually strengthen
Accredited's case, if anything. Because of the contract they signed,
Lonestar has to show that Accredited is disproportionately effected by
the industry downturn, and part of their claim is that they haven't
taken steps to scale down during bad conditions. Specifically, in
their response to the lawsuit, Lonestar states:

"(iii) the Company has failed to take reasonable steps to downsize its
payroll commensurate with its deteriorated business and other cost
cutting that any reasonable management would make when faced with
expected decline in loan production and the expected operating losses
that the Company has faced, (iv) Accredited has failed to take prompt
and reasonable steps to shut down loan production, particularly at the
high-risk end of the product line, (v) Accredited has not adequately
shed overhead [...]"

So the downsizing seems like an appropriate response, and exactly what
Lonestar is claiming they should do.

The relevant filings are on EDGAR, at
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=lsf5&CIK=&filenum=&St...

Your quote noted "(iii) the Comp..." what's the other two items that are
missing in the quote? And also if they satisfied that condition Lone
Star can still argue that scaling down was done too late because of
that the company lost x amount of money and LEND suffered irreparably.
-All of that is true. Also some forget that Lone Star has other
options:

1)      Appeal the decision of the court in unlikely case LEND wins.
2)      Continue with counterclaim and there would be a hold on any
forcible buy.

A counter offer does not weaken LS claim on the contrary it
strengthens it because they made a good faith attempt to settle this
thing in everyone's favor but that did happen because management/board
got greedy.

Again if I had my shares tendered, I would pull them out and sell them
immediately there is no reason to risk everything for five more bucks.
The stock is at a good level right now. Some are just hoping that Lone
Star would increase the bid again. I think the board is simply
bluffing they should have taken the offer immediately.

You have no clue what the dispute is about huh?

1) appeal the decision of the court - ??? on what grounds? you can't
appeal unless there is some procedural or jurisdictional error in the
presentation of the case. you can't appeal just because you don't like
the outcome.
2) continue and counterclaim - they already filed their countersuit,
and are requesting the 12 million cancellation fee. The case is to
uphold the original purchase contract - which has a closing date, and
conditions are satisfied for its completion. if this is upheld in
court then no further legal action could "hold on any buy"

the case is challenging that Lonestar is not honoring an executed,
filed, and approved agreement.  Lonestar is showing holes in its
position by amending its offers. LEND management/board is protecting
the best interests of the shares held by people like you and me.
Protecting my greed if anything.

The agreement and the case by LEND is in pure black and white. there
is no question as to their claims. Their filings have been accurate,
and their actions support the same as its industry peers. (CFC cut
12,000 jobs, IMB cut 3,000). who also show and claim similar losses
and dividends as LEND does.

Lonestar is stuck paying be 15.10 a share and they know it. They're
just hoping that LEND gets close enough to bankruptcy that they'll
HAVE to take a lower offer. That is always a possibility.

I think you have no clue. That's why your e-mail starts with nickname
smilepimp@. In any case I would never believe that the guy who
nicknames himself smilepimp would know anything about anything.

1) "what grounds? you can't appeal unless there is some procedural or
jurisdictional error" - This is not Law & Order show you watch on TV
or other legal television drama where they vindicate wrongly convicted
man on a death row. It's business law. Read a little bit of literature
and maybe you will learn that in 95% of cases which are not worth
settling are usually appealed. You don't need grounds for an appeal
you have a right for an appeal and if you appeal court has to hear
your case.

2) "they already filed their countersuit" - You bet they did, tell me
something I don't know.
"Which has a closing date" -nothing is going to close until the court
has spoken, all counter claims taken care of and appeals completed and
that's a fact.

"The case is challenging that Lonestar is not honoring an executed,
filed, and approved agreement". - You don't understand a very simple
concept. You CAN'T force someone to buy a house which has burned to
the ground. When title changes hands so does the responsibility of
loss. The law would not allow you to sign a contract to sell the house
with a peace of gold embedded in the wall, then remove the gold and
force someone to buy it from you. It does not happen and should not
happen. Forcing a buy of worthless property is unfair towards LS it is
also unfair towards LS shareholders and former LEND shareholders which
realized insolvency and traded stock below the offer price for so
long. You made the decision to go long when the company was obviously
insolvent so you bear the responsibility of a loss for your bad trade
so don't stand there shedding tears wiping you nose. Be a man.

"Their filings have been accurate" - They failed to file their
financials for months what are you talking about? They are still under
threat of being de-listed by NASDAQ.

CFC -had started to scale down risky sub-prime exposure months ego
while LEND continued. If jobs were cut earlier LEND would have been
more viable right now however it took a lawsuit to change their
ways.
"Who also show and claim similar losses" - we don't know if they claim
the similar losses since LEND has not filed their quarterly report. So
on what grounds are you basing your opinion?

"They're just hoping that LEND gets close enough to bankruptcy that
they'll" - No, even when they made a counter offer they offered the
company to pursue other options with other companies and if the
company was worth more then 15 a share management would have jumped on
that opportunity to take the company elsewhere, knowing that they can
get more for their firm somewhere else. But they don't because the
management knows that they have shabby products. They are just being
used car salesmen at this point trying to sell something that's no
good. They are suing the potential buyer to sell.

LMAO Giorgie porgie!

Your guidance counselor should have told you to go to college.

1.  i said it before and i'll say it again - you can't appeal because
you don't like the outcome. see your attorney about the appelate
circuit, especially the chancery court procedures.

2. What house burned down? LEND has filed 21 times in the last 30 days
with SEC completely divulging all material changes and activity
relating to the company's operations and status of shares. Obviously
it is still in existence, and so is the merger agreement. As a matter
of fact they are continuing to trade at over a million shares in
volume daily. To use your analogy - apparently there are still parties
bidding on that scorched house.

Now, if they were to file for BK protection I could see your point,
but for now you are just another doom and gloomer, with apparently no
financial stake in this stock other than personal vendetta.

3. Smilepimp - i sell smiles. you should see me about that. You might
not have such a wad up your butt from getting laid off, and may not
wish misfortune on those that were forced into letting the bottom 30%
of the company go.

Oh, and since you don't like listening to us pimps, how about from an
actual major shareholder?

"Stark Investments, which said its 8.4 percent stake makes it
Accredited's second-largest shareholder, said it supports the
rejection of Lone Star Funds' revised $8.50 per share takeover bid,
which valued Accredited at $214 million.

Lone Star had on June 4 agreed to pay $15.10 per share for San Diego-
based Accredited, but tried to back out after market conditions for
mortgage lenders deteriorated.

Dallas-based Lone Star submitted its lowered bid on August 30, saying
it would help ensure Accredited's survival, but the company rejected
it a day later. Accredited and Lone Star are litigating the matter in
Delaware Chancery Court.

In a September 7 letter to Accredited, Stark said Lone Star's lowered
offer "is nothing more than an attempt to divert attention from the
inherent weakness in Lone Star's litigation position under the
(merger) agreement.

Stark, with offices in St. Francis, Wisconsin, said it increased its
stake in Accredited from 5.9 percent as of July 5. The firm has more
than $13 billion of investor capital under management, according to
its Web site.

It disclosed the letter, its intentions, and the higher stake in a
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing."

Here me out guys, without negative remarks. Stark is concerned with
pushing this deal with Loan Star because they'll be the biggest the
loosers in this Accredited/Lone Star thingy. Think of it as if you
where Lone Star, You buy to make profits. If Accredited was a profit,
every mortgage company in the world would
be growing like a flower. Some of you guys sound like you work for
Accredited. One more thing if other buyers where on the table.
Accredited wouldn't have a hard on for Loan Star.  If I was Loan Star,
I would go to court too.

that is all quite possible. But look at this perspective:
Stark increased its stake in LEND from 5% to 8% back in July, just
after the merger agreement was amended and finalized. They obviously
felt strongly enough about the wording of the contract to increase
their stake in the company by over 50%. In the time between - shares
traded at up to half of during that period - mainly due to Lonestar's
press releases and expressing desire to back out - as opposed to
actual market condition or company insolubility.

Now if what you say is true, Stark would be trying to protect its
investment based on the initial contract price of 15.10. If they were
to support the amended offer by Lonestar at 8.50, it would follow that
they are mitigating losses.

However, since they are supporting LEND's position, they are obviously
risking the ENTIRE investment stake they have in the merger going
through as originally planned. I would think that if they are trying
to protect losses, they would be clamoring for LEND to take the 8.50
deal.

Not the case. They are more likely confident about the contract being
upheld in court, and would rather protect their potential returns at
15.10 as opposed to  taking what they can and protecting the
investment.

and no, I don't work for Accredited, i only have shares tendered. - so
technically, Accredited works for me! :-)

giorgi, you said "you will learn that in 95% of cases which are not
worth
settling are usually appealed". Could you cite a source for this
information?

As far as LEND, the next few weeks are going to be telling. The Fed
meets next Tuesday, and many believe we will see a rate cut from 25 to
50 basis points. Although this will not help LEND in the short-term,
it will help bring about stability in the market and raise investor
confidence. When it comes down to it, it is the investors that are
most important, because they are the ones who provide a majority of
revenue and cash inflows to the mortgage companies.

The reason these company's have been sinking is because of margin
calls. Basically, their portfolio of mortgages (similar to stocks)
sunk too low in value due to a decline in investor demand. Once it hit
a critical threshold, investors wanted their money and the companies
who have gone bankrupt are the ones who couldn't make the call.

I think the initial damage has been done. Those still standing made
the calls and are now reducing costs in order to stay afloat. Once the
market supply of money resumes flow, the companies will begin
recovery.

Go to the Yahoo! message board. There are much better discussions.

BUY!

WHat do we buy, I already bought. I unloaded a long time ago. When the
sun was shining and the weather was 90 degrees.

hey that could have been yesterday if you lived in Mexico.It is
horrible to miss these last five easy points and the easy 5 b4 that