No. The completed ownership and control arrangement must support a qualifying parent, branch, subsidiary or affiliate relationship. Buying assets or using a common brand does not by itself answer that question.
Analyse the transaction and employment
Identify the legal foreign employer and U.S. petitioner after closing and review how the employee’s prior service is treated. The knowledge claim must also connect to the current organisation and proposed work.
A specialist’s continued involvement in the same product is useful context, but it does not replace proof of corporate eligibility or qualifying foreign employment. Take the transaction and the employment history in that order, because the first determines how the second must be read. Identify the legal form of the deal and the entities existing after closing, then trace the specialist employer at each point in the preceding three years.
Hypothetical example: a cold-chain equipment maker is acquired by asset purchase, and its maintenance specialist is offered a U.S. role four months later. Continuous service is unbroken in ordinary terms, but the employing entity changed at closing, so whether one continuous qualifying year abroad within the three preceding years is available needs specific review rather than assumption.
Resolve that before commissioning a detailed description of the specialized knowledge. A knowledge account, however strong, cannot supply a qualifying year the corporate facts do not provide, and preparing it first commits effort to a question that may never arise.