Different names do not decide the relationship. Explain whether the records concern the same entity under different names or separate entities with a qualifying connection.
Identify the legal event rather than guessing from the label
A name change and an asset purchase can have very different implications. Provide actual records and have the corporate and employment consequences assessed before making the transfer claim. Different names defeat a case only when nobody can explain them.
The failure is evidentiary rather than substantive: the qualifying relationship may be perfectly intact while the file offers no instrument showing how the earlier entity became the present one. Ask the group's corporate counsel for the specific event and its date, then for the document that effected it, and record what the entity was called immediately before and immediately after. Where a predecessor was dissolved rather than continued, say so plainly and identify which surviving entity holds the employment history.
The legal test is unchanged by any of this — a qualifying relationship, one continuous year of full-time employment abroad within the preceding three years, and a managerial or executive role for L-1A — but the evidence has to reach that test through the names actually printed on the documents. Hypothetical example: an agronomist's employment record names three entities across four years, and one dated registry extract resolves what a narrative summary could not.