East Plano Islamic Center (“EPIC”) Under Fire

Deep Dive: Texas AG Sues EPIC / Community Capital Partners Over “EPIC City / The Meadow” Development — What We Know (Dec 2025)

Date: December 5, 2025

Overview

On December 5, 2025, the office of the Texas Attorney General filed a verified petition in Collin County district court against East Plano Islamic Center (EPIC), Community Capital Partners LP (CCP), EPIC Real Properties, Inc., and several individuals associated with those entities. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants operated an unregistered investment and land-development scheme tied to a proposed community project known as EPIC City (later rebranded as The Meadow), in Collin and Hunt Counties, Texas.

According to the AG’s filing and related public documents, CCP and its affiliates solicited investors by offering limited-partnership units and warrants, deceptively marketed the project, failed to comply with securities and disclosure laws, and misused investor funds — all while maintaining an unusually low public profile.

Project Background: What Was EPIC City / The Meadow Supposed to Be?

EPIC City / The Meadow was marketed as a large-scale, master-planned residential and mixed-use community on approximately 400–402 acres near Josephine, Texas (in Collin and Hunt Counties). The development was described as including over 1,000 residential homes, a mosque, a K–12 faith-based school, senior / assisted-living housing, apartments, retail, clinics, a community college, sports facilities, and other amenities.

The development vehicle was CCP, with oversight by EPIC Real Properties, Inc. Although associated with the religious institution EPIC, the development and investment structure was organized as a for-profit enterprise.

Who Are the Defendants

• Community Capital Partners LP (CCP): The primary for-profit entity formed to purchase and develop the land tied to EPIC City / The Meadow.
• EPIC Real Properties, Inc.: The corporate entity managing the development group and associated with CCP.
• East Plano Islamic Center (EPIC): The religious institution affiliated with the development; while EPIC provided community legitimacy, the lawsuit targets its for-profit entities, not religious practices.
• Individuals named in the petition: Among them are persons identified as officers or directors of the corporate entities — including roles such as President, directing real-estate management, and oversight of investor solicitations. (Names and capacities are listed in the verified petition filed by the AG.)

Key Allegations in the Lawsuit

The AG’s petition and accompanying materials outline multiple serious legal claims and allegations. These include:

• Unregistered securities offering / improper solicitation: CCP allegedly offered and sold investment units and warrants without registering them or obtaining legally required exemptions under the Texas Securities Act.
• Misleading and fraudulent promotional materials: Marketing reportedly characterized the project as “for Muslims,” sometimes touting the development as a faith-based or religion-oriented community. The AG contends these representations were used to attract investors under potentially false pretenses.
• Misrepresentation of critical project facts: The petition claims that fundamental facts — such as location, availability of municipal services, and build-out timelines — were misrepresented or omitted. For example, marketing materials allegedly continued to imply proximity to or inclusion in certain municipal jurisdictions or services even after developers were informed otherwise.
• Failure to verify accredited-investor status: Under securities law, certain investments are limited to “accredited investors.” The lawsuit claims CCP failed to properly verify accreditation status for a portion of its investors, violating statutory and regulatory requirements.
• Mishandling / misuse of investor funds and insider payments: Despite earlier public statements that payouts to insiders would be minimized, the AG claims documents show substantial compensation to insiders (e.g., a corporate officer with a compensation agreement of approximately US$360,000/year via an associated company), plus withdrawals exceeding US$1 million for general operating expenses — contrary to the use-of-funds described in offering materials.
• Operating as unregistered dealer/underwriter: The state contends that CCP functioned as a securities dealer or underwriter without proper registration, which violates Texas securities law.

The Secrecy & Lack of Public Presence

One of the most striking aspects of this case is the near-total absence of publicly accessible marketing materials, social-media presence, or advertisements associated with EPIC City, The Meadow, CCP, or EPIC Real Properties — at least none that can be verified today.

For a project reportedly soliciting large-scale investments and planning a major land development spanning hundreds of acres with residential and community amenities, the absence of any publicly traceable investor-relations website, social-media pages, advertising, or community-outreach documentation is highly unusual.

This lack of transparency and public traceability aligns with the AG’s allegations of secrecy, misrepresentation, and regulatory noncompliance. It raises serious concerns about how the development and investment efforts were promoted, to whom they were sold, and under what disclosures.

Regulatory & Investigative History (Before the Lawsuit)

The December 2025 lawsuit was not the first sign of state scrutiny. According to publicly available records and prior communications, the development entities came under investigation earlier in 2025. Key steps in that lead-up include:

• Civil Investigative Demand (CID): In early 2025, state regulators issued a CID to CCP, requesting documents related to marketing materials, investor solicitations, financial statements, contracts, and corporate records. This indicates that regulatory authorities were already reviewing the project’s compliance with securities and consumer-protection laws.
• Municipal records and communications requests: The AG’s office requested records from municipalities near the project area to determine whether local officials had any involvement or prior communications with developers — a sign regulators were checking for potential collusion, improper zoning, or misrepresentations about municipal support or services.
• Environmental and construction-permit scrutiny: State environmental regulators reportedly flagged that no required environmental or construction permits had been filed before the project’s promotional materials circulated, raising red flags about the legality of any groundwork or pre-sold parcels.
• Fair-housing and anti-discrimination review concerns: Because the development was marketed at least in part with religious/faith-based language and possibly to a Muslim audience, the project drew scrutiny under fair-housing and non-discrimination laws and regulations — especially given the mix of public-interest, community-use, and for-profit investment aspects.

Relief Sought by the State / What the AG Is Asking the Court to Do

In the petition, the state requests multiple remedies and court orders, including:

• Immediate injunctive relief to halt all offering, solicitation, sales, or investment-related activity tied to EPIC City / The Meadow or CCP. This would freeze further fundraising or lot sales.
• Freezing of assets, appointment of a receiver or court-supervised oversight, and full accounting of funds collected from investors.
• Disgorgement of ill-gotten gains — requiring return of funds collected under the allegedly improper scheme.
• Civil penalties under the Texas Securities Act, including statutory fines for each violation identified.
• Corrective and disclosure orders requiring any future offerings to comply with registration, disclosure, and investor-protection laws — and restitution or remediation where appropriate.

Major Unanswered Questions & What Remains Unknown

Despite the detail in the AG’s petition and press release, several key questions remain unresolved publicly — at least for now. These include:

• How many investors were actually solicited or participated in the offering, and what was the total amount of money raised (if any)?
• Whether promotional and offering materials were ever publicly posted online, or if all solicitations were conducted privately — and if they are archived anywhere.
• Why the project was rebranded from “EPIC City” to “The Meadow,” and whether that name change was prompted by legal scrutiny, investor concerns, or marketing strategy.
• Whether any lots were actually sold, title transferred, or any construction started — and whether any municipal services, zoning, or permits were ever formally approved.
• Whether the individuals named will defend the lawsuit, or whether they will settle, seek to dismiss, or otherwise respond — and what their legal arguments will be.

These unanswered aspects contribute to the overall opacity of the project and underscore why the AG’s action was deemed necessary — to demand transparency, accountability, and legal compliance.

Why This Case Matters — Broader Implications

This lawsuit highlights how religiously affiliated organizations or faith-based institutions, when operating through for-profit development vehicles and soliciting investor funds, are still subject to ordinary securities, disclosure, and consumer-protection laws. The religious affiliation of founders or sponsors does not grant immunity from regulatory oversight when engaging in financial or real-estate ventures.

It also raises broader concerns around community transparency, investor protection, and fair-housing or discrimination law — especially when marketing targets specific religious or ethnic groups. The combination of religious association, private investment solicitation, and large-scale land development requires rigorous legal compliance and public transparency.

For prospective investors, community members, regulators, and the broader public, the case underscores the need for caution, due diligence, and skepticism towards offers that seem too good to be true — particularly when public documentation or online presence is lacking.

Official Documents & Where to Read the Lawsuit

• Press release by the office of the Attorney General of Texas (December 5, 2025) — announcing the filing of the lawsuit.
• Verified Original Petition & Application (PDF) filed in Collin County District Court — contains full legal claims, attachments, and evidence summary.

Important: For full accuracy, readers are encouraged to review the original documents, not just media summaries or blog recaps.

Disclaimer: This post summarizes publicly available information — court filings, press releases, media reporting, and public records. It is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For legal interpretation or advice, readers should consult a qualified attorney.

© DFWSAS 2025