Oaktree Capital Management sued BJ Wholesale Club in New York, alleging the retailer reneged on a March deal to sell its rights to roughly $29 million in tariff refunds for 70 cents on the dollar. Oaktree contends the agreement lost appeal after market prices for the refunds climbed, leading BJ’s to invoke a walk‑away provision. The suit spotlights how quickly refund claims are being priced post‑Supreme Court ruling.

The contract called for BJ’s to deliver the claim in exchange for a $20 million payment, with the retailer obliged to use commercially reasonable efforts to close the transaction. Internal emails show BJ’s initially confirmed approvals on April 14, then reversed, citing unresolved final approval. Oaktree argues the walk‑away clause was never meant as a unilateral cancellation right.

The litigation arrives as tariff‑refund trading has surged; after the Court’s 6‑3 decision, prices jumped from 10‑20 cents to over 40 cents on the dollar. Customs and Border Protection recently opened an online portal to process $166 billion of potential refunds. Large retailers such as BJ’s view the market as a way to monetize legacy liabilities. Investors watch the case because it tests the enforceability of emerging refund‑trading contracts.