When the Securities and Exchange Commission sends you a Wells Notice, that’s not usually considered a positive development. It means that the SEC Enforcement staff has decided that sufficient evidence and cause exists to file an enforcement lawsuit, usually seeking civil penalties, disgorgement of proceeds from stock sales and almost always bans from serving as an officer or director of a public company.
Under SEC guidelines, a target of a Wells Notice may respond directly to the SEC Commissioners by submitting what is know as a “Wells Submission,” but doing so is a dicey proposition. The Commissioners almost always defer to the Enforcement Division’s recommendation on whether to pursue an enforcement action, so filing a Wells Submission is essentially providing the Enforcement Division an outline of the target’s defense. Moreover, a Wells Submission is neither privileged nor confidential, so anything in the submission can be used against the target in further proceedings with the SEC or in related civil or criminal proceedings.
Thus, with that backdrop, get a load of the way in which Interpublic Group describes the receipt of a Wells Notice in a recent press release, as this footnoted.org post reports:

[J]udging by the press release that Interpublic Group (IPG) put out this morning, youíd think that getting a Wells notice from the SEC was something to celebrate. Indeed, the idea that responding is not voluntary is missing from the release. Instead, Interpublic describes it as an “invite” and calls it as another step in the settlement process.
The spin doesnít end there. The release goes on to quote Chairman and CEO Michael Roth, who notes that “Given our understanding of new procedures at the SEC, this development is not unanticipated and we believe that it moves us a step closer to resolution in this matter.”

Heck, based on this logic, an indictment related to the company’s activities would be cause for a big party.