years after the allegations regarding Enron’s manipulation of the energy markets in California became widely known and almost two years after he articulated virtually identical causes of action and legal theories in the California Claims. In order to meet the section 362(b)(4) exception to the automatic stay, when a law has multiple purposes, the Court must find that the action is brought primarily to enforce the law’s protection of the public safety or health of the citizens of California and not primarily to protect the State’s pecuniary interest. Here the Attorney General advances the California Litigation primarily for restitution, which is only an ancillary purpose of the California consumer protection laws. Pacific Land Research, 20 Cal.3d at 17, 141 Cal.Rptr. 20, 569 P.2d 125 (<HOLDING>). According to press reports, the Attorney
holding that equitable restitution is available but that legal restitution is not holding that the request for restitution in a consumer protection action is only ancillary to the primary remedies sought for the benefit of the public holding that an award of restitution is only for the loss caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction holding no restitution hearing is mandated when defendant did not object to order of restitution or request a hearing holding that under the restitution provision of the supervised release statute 18 usc  3583 restitution can be ordered only for losses caused by the specific conduct that is the basis for the offense of conviction