See Northern Metal, 350 F.2d at 838 n. 12 (suit filed more than two years after cause of action arose not barred under Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C.App. § 745, because government’s not finally adjudicating plaintiffs administrative claim during two years since action arose prevented his timely filing suit). Unlike the plaintiff in an AEA suit who, before filing suit, has merely to wait six months after filing a claim with an agency, the plaintiff in Northern Metal, who submitted a claim pursuant to the dispute clause of his contract with the government, could not appeal to the courts until he had exhausted his administrative remedies. See Id. at 838 n. 11, n. 12. Finally, tolling may be appropriate when the defendant engages in “improper dilatory tactics,” see Core, 759 F.2d at 484 (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, the government did not
holding that the limitations period in section 1640e runs from the date of consummation of the transaction and rejecting a continuing violation theory holding limitations period for filing petition for postconviction relief runs from date of final judgment not from date of subsequent order revoking appeal bond holding that the limitations period in section 1640e runs from the date of consummation of the transaction holding that the thirty day removal period runs from the date of fdics plea in intervention and notice of substitution holding fiveyear limitation period in 28 usc  2462 runs from date of predicate violation not from date of administrative assessment of sanction