Cozen O’Connor: Glazer, Matthew A.

Matthew A. Glazer

Member

Philadelphia

(215) 665-5566

(215) 665-2013

Matthew A. Glazer handles a wide variety of complex commercial litigation in state and federal courts including real estate, toxic tort, products liability, construction and breach of contract matters and has successfully tried hundreds of cases, both civil and criminal.  Additionally, his prosecution background allows him to provide both trial representation and valuable guidance to individuals and corporations who are subjects of government investigations as well as to conduct internal investigations. 

Matt has extensive experience helping companies and individuals navigate government investigations, implement compliance programs, and defend against criminal charges.  He has represented a diverse range of clients, including large health care service providers, financial institutions, manufacturers, tech companies, and corporate directors and executives.

Matthew earned his bachelor’s degree from Tufts University with a double major in international relations and Spanish.  He received his law degree from Temple University Beasley School of Law where he was an editor of the Temple International & Comparative Law Journal.  Matthew was also the recipient of the Harry R. Kozart Memorial Prize Fund Award. He is proficient in Spanish.

Experience

News

Cozen O’Connor Pro Bono Team Secure James Dennis's Release After 25 years in Prison

January 20, 2017

Stephen Cozen and Matt Glazer, with assists from Harper Seldin and Coleen Williams, devised a strategy that led to a deal that will likely have Dennis out in a few weeks.

Bob Hayes and Matthew Glazer in Law360 Regarding Successful Representation of Comcast Spectacor

July 30, 2014

A Pennsylvania federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit in which two sports industry veterans sought a $2 million finder's fee from Comcast Spectacor LP, the former owner of the Philadelphia 76ers, stemming from the 2011 sale of the franchise. U.S. District Judge Petrese Tucker ruled that under the agreement Bob Whitsitt — a former owner of the Seattle Seahawks and Portland Trailblazers — and Thomas Shine signed with Comcast Spectacor, the pair were obligated to identify the proposed purchaser to the team in order to collect their fee.

Bob Hayes and Matthew Glazer Prevail On Behalf of Comcast-Spectacor

July 30, 2014

Bob Hayes and Matthew Glazer, members of Cozen O’Connor’s Commercial Litigation Department, recently obtained a favorable ruling on behalf of Comcast-Spectacor in a breach of contract suit against the former owner of the Philadelphia 76ers, in which the plaintiffs alleged they were deprived of fees relating to finding a buyer during the sale of the team. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Chief Judge Petrese B. Tucker granted summary judgment in favor of Comcast-Spectacor. The ruling served as a reversal to a prior decision by Tucker in which she said ambiguities in the written language of the contract between the plaintiffs and defendant necessitated further examination of the case by a jury. Tucker said in her opinion that a reversal was necessary because the court failed to address certain portions of the contract.

Cozen O’Connor Elects 20 Associates to Membership

March 27, 2013

Ian Blum, Alphonso Collins, Kathryn Crary, Lynnette Espy-Williams, Elizabeth Featherman, Matthew Glazer, Nelsy Gomez, Andrea Hammel, Keenya Harrold, Charles Jesuit, Jr., Lezlie Madden, Marilyn Neiman, Tracey Nguyen, Cartherine Rosato Reilly, Megan Scheib, Daniel Schuch, John Schwartz, Shari Shapiro, Marko Stamenkovic, and Norasha Williams have been elected to membership in the firm.

Publications

First Amendment Under Arrest: Photographing Police in Public Places at Issue on Multiple Fronts [Villanova Law Review]

July 17, 2016

Tom Wilkinson and Matthew Glazer, both members of Cozen O'Connor's Commercial Litigation department, discuss photographing police in public places in the Villanova Law Review.

A Primer on Joint-Defense Agreements [The Legal Intelligencer]

May 05, 2015

Matthew Glazer and Arthur Fritzinger explain that even the most routine corporate investigation has the potential to develop into a multidefendant case, and it may be important for parties to coordinate their strategies from the beginning through joint-defense agreements.

Potential benefits of cooperation with OFAC (Part 3) [InsideCounsel]

January 22, 2014

OFAC does not deal only with cooperating entities, of course. On one hand, non-cooperating entities certainly run a risk that OFAC will refer their violations to criminal authorities. But even a non-cooperator can receive benefits, even grudgingly, under OFAC’s administrative-penalty regime — especially compared to companies that become targets of criminal prosecution and the severe penalties attendant to that process. That comparison between administrative and criminal punishments of non-cooperating entities, as discussed infra, may yield useful, persuasive data to criminal defense lawyers representing an entity under criminal investigation.

Potential benefits of cooperation with OFAC (Part 2) [InsideCounsel]

December 23, 2013

As the formulas from Part 1 demonstrate, OFAC’s regulations strongly incentivize cooperation to reduce a violator’s penalty. The next section examines a few recent enforcement actions in which companies have taken advantage of these regulatory formulas to minimize penalties resulting from violations.

Potential benefits of cooperation with OFAC (Part 1) [InsideCounsel]

November 20, 2013

Recent settlements in civil enforcement proceedings brought by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) suggest that cover-ups, not crimes, may invite the stiffest penalties. Frequently, companies that cooperate with OFAC investigations, admit wrongdoing and take remedial actions to prevent future violations escape the enforcement process with mild punishments. Indeed, even companies that eventually cooperate after some initial resistance fare well in OFAC’s administrative enforcement process and often avoid criminal penalties altogether — penalties that, aside from the reputational damage, carry much more severe consequences, including prison time for individuals and massive financial impact.

Events & Seminars

Past Events

Judicial Affairs: Restorative Justice

March 04, 2016 - Philadelphia, PA

Who's Accountable to Whom?

November 13, 2015 - Mechanicsburg, PA

Education

  • Temple University—James E. Beasley School of Law, J.D., 2006
  • Tufts University, B.A., 2000
  • New Jersey
  • Pennsylvania
  • U.S. District Court -- New Jersey