robb, Walgreens has always had a tendency to file suit when affronted by either state or federal government actions it deems harmful. Dana Green built a very lucrative career at Walgreens by formally challenging, and often winning such actions to WAG's betterment. Now there is a new General Counsel, so I am not surprised that he might want to assert his credentials in a similar way.
What is strange to me is the timing of the action and Walgreens specifically naming Eric Holder in its legal filing. There is an election in exactly one month. If Obama loses, The RNC has openly stated their disapproval of Holder for his actions in "Fast & Furious" and thus a certainty to the end of his tenure as Attorney General. Since Holder obviously is acutely aware of this fact, why not wait until after the election to file such an action? Walgreens has set itself up for a potentially lethal, lame-duck payback if Holder is exiting the office AG on Inauguration Day.
The timing makes no sense to me. Then, again, maybe Romney will win and make it all a moot point. You are fully correct that this is a very serious and potentially very costly showdown with the DEA if Walgreens fails to prevail. CAH, who SETTLED wih the DEA, got slammed with penalties. Can you imagine the incremental pain which could be inflicted if Holder is retained in an Obama second term and decides to return the favor of recompense?
Youch! Almost regardless of the election's outcome, there is a huge risk to WAG by taking this action at this time, IMHO. Should have waited before stomping on Holder's sore toe.
GLTA,
Yank
