other situations where courts have ruled a sanction that only remedies damage caused by the defendant is not a penalty for purposes of § 2462 even though it is imposed by the government. See, e.g., Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works v. Atlanta, 203 U.S. 390, 397, 27 S.Ct. 65, 51 L.Ed. 241 (1906) (refusing to apply predecessor to § 2462 to bar Atlanta’s action against defendants for recovery of damages for injury to property); United States v. Perry, 431 F.2d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir.1970) (ruling Government’s action to recover sums allegedly paid in violation of the Anti-Kickback Act was not barred by § 2462 because the sanctions were designed to make the Government whole by recovering extra costs incurred when kickbacks were paid); United States v. Doman, 255 F.2d 865, 869 (3d. Cir.1958) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 359 U.S. 309, 79 S.Ct. 755, 3 L.Ed.2d
holding that recovery is limited to actual compensatory damages holding that a declaratoryjudgment action seeking to compel officials to perform their legal duties was not barred by  14 however a portion of the action seeking compensatory damages could not be maintained holding that the governments precluding plaintiff from building a mitigation bank on his property was not a taking because the governments authority predated plaintiffs property right holding governments action under surplus property act not barred by  2462 since the recovery was compensatory to the government not a penalty holding that sovereign immunity barred claim for compensatory sanctions against the government