UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Release No. 83459 / June 18, 2018

INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940

Release No. 4942 / June 18, 2018

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-18545

In the Matter of

BRYAN LEE ADDINGTON, 

Respondent.

ORDER INSTITUTING 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(b) OF THE 

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

AND SECTION 203(f) OF THE 

INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940

AND NOTICE OF HEARING

I.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate and in the 

public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to 

Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Section 203(f) of the 

Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) against Bryan Lee Addington (“Respondent” or 

“Addington”).

II.

After an investigation, the Division of Enforcement alleges that:

A. RESPONDENT

1. Addington, age 56, was a resident of Ethel, Louisiana. From February 2007 

through February 19, 2010, Addington was associated with First Midwest Securities, Inc. (“First 

Midwest”), a broker dealer and investment adviser registered with the Commission. Between 

September 1995 and February 2007, Addington was associated with other broker dealers registered 

with the Commission. In August 2011, FINRA barred Addington from associating with any 

member firm. During the initial portion of the misconduct described in paragraph B.3, Addington 

was associated with First Midwest. During the remainder of the misconduct, Addington acted as 

an unregistered investment adviser who operated various entities, including Addington Investment 
2

Services, Bryan L. Addington Financial, SAL Financial Services, and DBR Holdings LLC. 

During this period, Addington, for compensation, engaged in the business of advising others as to 

the advisability of investing in, purchasing, or selling securities.

B. RESPONDENT’S CRIMINAL CONVICTION

2. On March 6, 2017, Addington pled guilty to one count of mail fraud in 

violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341, and one count of aggravated identity theft 

in violation of Title18, United States Code, Section 1028A, before the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Louisiana, in United States v. Bryan Lee Addington, Case No. 3:16-CR00098-JJB-RLB. On November 9, 2017, a judgment in the criminal case was entered against 

Addington. He was sentenced to a prison term of 159 months followed by three years of 

supervised release and was ordered to make restitution in the amount of $5,393,346.63.

3. In connection with that plea, Addington admitted that, for the purpose of 

enriching himself, between January 1, 2010 and April 14, 2016, he devised a scheme to defraud

investors, which consisted of: (a) falsely representing that investors’ money would be invested in, 

among other things, real estate and land, insurance products, film tax credits, annuities, and stock, 

and would be used to purchase insurance policies, (b) falsely representing that the investments 

were safe and would yield good (sometimes guaranteed) returns, and (c) providing investors false 

documents and making periodic payments to them (often with funds provided by later investors) to 

lull investors into believing that he had invested their money as promised, when in fact he had not 

made any such investments. Addington caused losses totaling approximately $5.4 million to 32 

victims, several of which lost a substantial portion of their retirement savings.

III.

In view of the allegations made by the Division of Enforcement, the Commission deems it 

necessary and appropriate in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be instituted 

to determine:

A. Whether the allegations set forth in Section II hereof are true and, in connection 

therewith, to afford Respondent an opportunity to establish any defenses to such allegations;

B. What, if any, remedial action is appropriate in the public interest against Respondent 

pursuant to Section 15(b)(6) of the Exchange Act;

C. What, if any, remedial action is appropriate in the public interest against Respondent 

pursuant to Section 203(f) of the Advisers Act; and

D. Whether, pursuant to Section 15(b)(6) of the Exchange Act, it is appropriate and 

in the public interest to bar Respondent from participating in any offering of penny stock, 

including: acting as a promoter, finder, consultant, agent or other person who engages in 

activities with a broker, dealer or issuer for purposes of the issuance or trading in any penny 

stock; or inducing or attempting to induce the purchase or sale of any penny stock.
3

IV.

IT IS ORDERED that a public hearing for the purpose of taking evidence on the questions 

set forth in Section III hereof shall be convened at a time and place to be fixed, and before an 

Administrative Law Judge to be designated by further order as provided by Rule 110 of the 

Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.110.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall file an Answer to the allegations 

contained in this Order within twenty (20) days after service of this Order, as provided by Rule 220 

of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.220.

If Respondent fails to file the directed answer, or fails to appear at a hearing after being duly 

notified, the Respondent may be deemed in default and the proceedings may be determined against 

him upon consideration of this Order, the allegations of which may be deemed to be true as 

provided by Rules 155(a), 220(f), 221(f) and 310 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. 

§§ 201.155(a), 201.220(f), 201.221(f) and 201.310.

This Order shall be served forthwith upon Respondent as provided for in the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 360(a)(2) of the Commission’s Rules 

of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.360(a)(2), the Administrative Law Judge shall issue an initial decision 

no later than 75 days from the occurrence of one of the following events: (A) The completion of 

post-hearing briefing in a proceeding where the hearing has been completed; (B) Where the 

hearing officer has determined that no hearing is necessary, upon completion of briefing on a 

motion pursuant to Rule 250 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.250; or (C) 

The determination by the hearing officer that a party is deemed to be in default under Rule 155 of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.155 and no hearing is necessary. 

In the absence of an appropriate waiver, no officer or employee of the Commission engaged 

in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions in this or any factually related 

proceeding will be permitted to participate or advise in the decision of this matter, except as witness 

or counsel in proceedings held pursuant to notice. Since this proceeding is not “rule making” within 

the meaning of Section 551 of the Administrative Procedure Act, it is not deemed subject to the 

provisions of Section 553 delaying the effective date of any final Commission action.

By the Commission.

Brent J. Fields

Secretary