Nothing in the program facts makes a corporate name change a new filing event that repeats the per-employee US$15,000 fee or the US$2,000,000 gift. Pay what the instruction for your case actually says, when it says it. Treat any demand that conflicts with those instructions as something to verify first.
Paying on instruction rather than on assumption
The gift is transferred after successful vetting, at the point the instructions call for it, so it is not a lump sum tendered alongside the application fee. Keep the 1% annual maintenance and the 5% figure tied to a transfer mechanism separate in your budgeting — they are not part of the ordinary initial fee. Government visa, medical and professional costs sit outside all of this, and a firm can quote its own work in writing.
A sponsoring company's file references its own legal identity, so a name change should be documented with the same care as any other corporate fact, even when no additional payment is triggered by the change. Keeping a dated certificate of the name change, with any updated corporate registration, available for the file avoids a gap between what an earlier document says and what the company is now called. An unexplained naming inconsistency across different parts of the same record can prompt a question during review even where nothing substantive has changed, simply because a reviewer cannot tell whether the two names describe one company or two.
Attaching a written note that connects the old name to the new one, with the date of the change, resolves that question before it is asked.