LangInnov: One Payroll, Two Federal Programs

LangInnov agreed to pay $50,000 to settle allegations involving duplicate payroll and principal-investigator employment in National Science Foundation grants, along with research performed overseas. The New York educational technology company also agreed to give up unpaid grant funding. For someone who handled its payroll, research accounts or employment records, the allegations turn on concrete comparisons: where the work happened, which federal program paid for it, and who actually employed the investigator.

In its June 10, 2026 announcement, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York described a False Claims Act settlement with LangInnov Inc. The company had received Phase I and Phase II awards from the National Science Foundation’s Small Business Innovation Research program to develop an application for bilingual students. It also received a Paycheck Protection Program loan that the Small Business Administration later forgave.

The Alleged Phase I Charges for Work in Paris

The government alleged that LangInnov charged its Phase I SBIR award for 100 hours its chief operating officer worked in Paris, France. The location mattered because the Small Business Innovation Research conditions described in the announcement required research and development to take place in the United States.

The announcement describes Small Business Innovation Research as a competitive program intended to advance technology within the United States and strengthen American businesses and the economy. It connects the domestic research requirement to national security interests as well.

In a federal grant case like this, we examine the work and payroll records together with the award’s conditions.

SBIR Payroll Charged to NSF Grant and PPP Forgiveness

The government alleged that LangInnov double-booked payroll to its Small Business Innovation Research award and its forgiven Paycheck Protection Program loan, including payroll for the Paris work. It also alleged that LangInnov falsely stated in its loan application that the United States was the principal place of residence for all employees.

The Paycheck Protection Program supplied emergency assistance to American small businesses through forgivable loans for payroll and certain other expenses. The National Science Foundation permitted Small Business Innovation Research awardees to apply for those loans. They could not ask both programs to pay for the same costs.

One salary expense. Two federal funding sources.

We trace the salary expense across the research award and the Paycheck Protection Program loan to show where the same cost appears in both accounts.

The agency’s permission to seek a loan did not authorize charging both programs for the same expense. That is why the award account and the loan-forgiveness account have to be read together. A payroll entry could look ordinary within either account while the comparison revealed that the same work had already been charged elsewhere. The government’s allegation concerns that overlap, rather than the mere fact that the company received both forms of funding.

The Paris allegation intersects with the duplication allegation because the government said payroll for that work appeared in both funding accounts. The work-location condition and the prohibition on duplicate payment nevertheless test different facts. One concerns where the research happened; the other concerns which program was asked to bear its cost. Keeping those questions separate explains the grant allegations without assuming that every salary charge had the same defect.

Principal-Investigator Employment in NSF Grants

Principal-investigator employment in NSF grants was a separate LangInnov allegation: the government said the company failed to primarily employ its principal investigator throughout the Phase I award. The announcement describes the Small Business Innovation Research requirement as primary employment with the small business for the duration of the award.

That puts the employment relationship behind the title at issue. For someone administering a research project, the company’s employment records and actual work arrangements may explain a difference between the team represented to the National Science Foundation and the team inside the business.

AQUASENT provides a related National Science Foundation example. In its settlement announcement concerning the company and its officials, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut described allegations of false representations about principal-investigator employment, facilities, financial management, timesheets and matching investors. Those allegations show why the investigator’s employment belongs beside the other promises in a small-business research application.

LangInnov’s allegation was narrower. It concerned the investigator’s primary employment during Phase I, alongside the payroll and work-location allegations.

What Proof Do You Need as a Whistleblower?

For grant payroll allegations like these, proof connects the work and salary charge to what the company told the government. We work with you to build that connection from the records and your experience inside the project.

LangInnov allegedly charged the same payroll to a research award and Paycheck Protection Program funding, while the Scripps Research Institute allegedly charged unrelated work to existing research grants.

The National Science Foundation Stopped the Phase II Payments

The National Science Foundation suspended payments on LangInnov’s Phase II award after learning of the alleged conduct. LangInnov agreed to forgo the remaining $224,634 in unpaid funding as part of the settlement.

The government said the settlement reflected LangInnov’s ability to pay. Its headline combined the cash commitment with funding the agency had already stopped paying. We see the oddity: part of the headline amount was money that had never left the agency.

The investigation began with the National Science Foundation’s Office of Inspector General. Its proactive initiative sought Small Business Innovation Research recipients improperly operating outside the United States, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office opened its investigation from there. The location condition led into a case that also covered payroll allocation and investigator employment.

The inspector general’s explanation of the stakes was straightforward: failing to follow Small Business Innovation Research requirements takes funding away from deserving American businesses. The loss is also competitive. Businesses seeking support for domestic research are competing for the same program’s funds.

How Much Money Can a Whistleblower Get From a Qui Tam Lawsuit?

A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers. For someone with knowledge of duplicate payroll or a research team’s actual employment, we assess the funding and the evidence together as we build the case.

You Know Which Account Paid the Salary

If you saw the same payroll used for SBIR and PPP funding, or knew the work location and employment arrangement behind an NSF award, speak to one of our Whistleblower Experts about the payroll behind the funding. We build your strongest grant fraud case with you and bring in NSF grant fraud whistleblower lawyers who understand research payroll and award conditions. You bring the view from inside the project, and we stay beside you through the case.