The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Barclays PLC (“Barclays” or the “Company”) (NYSE: BCS) securities during the period between August 2, 2011 and June 25, 2014, inclusive (the “Class Period”). If you have suffered a loss from investment in Barclays securities purchased on or after August 2, 2011 and held through the revelation of negative information during and/or at the end of the Class Period, as described below, and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please visit our website at http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html. You may also request more information by contacting Brower Piven either by email at firstname.lastname@example.org or by telephone at (410) 415-6616. No class has yet been certified in the above action. Members of the Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the Class, you must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff no later than September 26, 2014 and be selected by the Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and participate in important decisions including whether to accept a settlement and how much of a settlement to accept for the Class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in Company units during the Class Period. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants’ failure to disclose during the Class Period that the Company used its dark pool to favor high-frequency traders over its other clients, that the Company routed a disproportionately high percentage of client orders to its own dark pool while falsely representing that it routed client orders in a manner that did not favor Barclays LX, and that Barclays’ practices subjected it to regulatory scrutiny and significant reputational harm.