We made billions of dollars to move in support of yen

NEW YORK  - the United States deployed 1.0 billion through intervention by the G7 in the currency markets to tame the yen soared after the earthquake of the Japan disaster, the Federal Reserve said Friday.

"U.S. monetary authorities intervened in the foreign exchange markets once in the first quarter, March 18, purchase of $ 1 billion against the Japanese yen," the Federal Reserve Bank of New York said in its quarterly report for the Congress of the United States.

The New York Fed confirmed the intervention to sell the yen on March 18, without disclosing its value.

The day before, the Japan and its economic allies announced that they would intervene on currency markets for the first time in ten years to calm the crisis triggered by the severe earthquake on March 11 and the tsunami and the subsequent nuclear crisis.

The pledge came after talks about emergency telephone by the Group of seven nations in response to a surge in the yen, which threatens the prospects for recovery in the Japanese economy.

The amount of U.S. intervention was evenly divided between the Federal Reserve and US Treasury, said the New York Fed.

The intervention of coordinated G7 was conducted by the foreign exchange trading desk at the Fed New York, operating in collaboration with the Japanese monetary authorities, the Central Bank European and monetary authorities of Great Britain and the CanadaHe said.

In the three months ended March 31, the dollar had depreciated 5.5% against the euro but appreciated by 2.5 percent against the Japanese yen, the New York Fed reported.

At the same time, the dollar weakened 3.7%, as measured by major currencies of the Federal Reserve Board, in part because "We, the concerns of increased economic growth" and expectated the Fed to maintain the low market interest rates, but provides for an increase in the rate of the European Central Bank.

AIG seeks to recover billions, he lost to fraud (Reuters)

 American International Group Inc. sued two companies managing cash Thursday in the beginning of a fight to recover billions of dollars, the refloated-out insurer said he lost because of fraud.

The insurer, 92% owned by the Government of the United States, joined the ranks of swelling of investors and insurers that take on Wall Street on so-called safe investments related to the mortgage at the heart of the financial crisis of 2008.

Insurance giant sued ICP Asset Management and Moore Capital of the New York State Supreme Court, but indicated that legal proceedings have been the beginning of a campaign that would put the major Wall Street banks in its sights.

AIG, which received $ 182 billion in rescue money, argued that he suffered losses through mortgage-backed securities that created one of the financial companies.

PIC could not be reached immediately for comment. A spokesman for Moore said: "we haven't seen the complaint and therefore cannot comment."

AIG campaign will probably aim to Bank of America Corp., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., and other Wall Street banks, according a person familiar with the strategy of AIG.

Banks selling mortgage bonds AIG with range high credit ratings have fallen since value.

Goldman Sachs and the Bank of America declined to comment on.

Investors, bond insurers and the Federal home loan banks have already sought tens of billions of dollars of banks for misrepresenting the quality of real estate loans that were packaged in bonds called mortgage-backed securities.

While none of the lawsuits went to trial, Bank of America recently concluded an agreement of $ 1.6 billion with the insured Guaranty Ltd., who has insured the mortgage bonds. Some legal, and financial analysts said that many showed the legal claims that pose a real risk to banks.

PART OF THE LARGER REVIEW

AIG reported that prosecution more could be on the road.

"At the annual meeting last year, CEO of AIG Bob Benmosche said that we would review our reports with all counterparties with whom we have business before and during the crisis to see if they we aggrieved by their behavior.". This combination is the first result of this review, the company said.

The prosecution was brought by AIG financial products unit in the context of "overall efforts the insurer to recover potentially billions of dollars of the fraudulent conduct of the defendants and the other parties", said the complaint.

Some stock analysts announce the ultimate cost of claims against various titles of mortgages from banks could reach tens of billions of dollars.

Claims could put an end to their return from America alone almost $ 30 billion, said Chris Gamaitoni, an analyst with Compass Point research & Trading LLC.

However, that could be spread over many years as a large part of the issue has bogged down in the procedure.

The United States Government rescued AIG at 2008 financial panic, pumping billions into society, after she and other giant financial companies suffered huge losses of securities linked to the crash of the housing market United States.

A great advantage of the rescue of AIG and will store possible Government before the 2012 U.S. elections would be a boost for the administration of Obama kick, in the wake of the success to Citigroup Inc. and General Motors Co.

A spokesman for the US Treasury, he was not involved in the decision to prosecute those responsible for the money.

350 MILLION ALLEGED DAMAGES

The trial said obligations breached defendants for AIG related to the creation of obligations backed complex or CDO.

AIG said it has suffered more than 350 million dollars in damages and interests of the alleged misconduct, which included using values inflated on mortgage bonds that were packed in the CDO. Inflating values, PKI created windfall profits for itself and to enlarge its management fees, the prosecution argued.

The complaint is based on the continuation of dry last year against PKI in Manhattan Federal Court, accusing the investment advisory firm of violating federal securities laws on several occasions.

The case of AIG is products financial AIG c peak Asset Management LLC et al, Supreme Court of New York, New York County, no. 651117/2011.