Once that duty arises, § 203(c) does not insulate from reporting the matters in § 203(b) for non-persuader clients.” Price, 412 F.2d at 651. In the present case, § 203(b) requires the plaintiff to not only file the 30-day report but to also file the annual report because of its labor persuader activities for Southern Silk Mills. The Plaintiff, however, maintains that § 204, 29 U.S.C. § 434, exempts it from § 203(b)’s disclosure and reporting requirements. Although Price, Wirtz and Douglas did not rely on § 204 in reaching their conclusions, their analysis involving § 203 and dicta in Wirtz and Douglas concerning § 204 is relevant to this Court’s analysis of the scope of § 204 relied on by the plaintiff in this case to exempt it from § 203(b)’s requirements. See Douglas, 353 F.2d at 33 (<HOLDING>); Wirtz, 372 F.2d at 332 (finding it
holding that filing an answer  does not invoke the status as a defendant in plaintiffs lawsuit holding that a party does not waive arbitration simply by failing to invoke it in the complaint or answer holding that the plaintiff does not invoke  204 to uphold his primary contention holding that a complaint that fails to meet the pleading requirements does not invoke the statutory waiver of sovereign immunity holding that presuit activity does not invoke the judicial process and cannot support a finding of waiver