The Adelphia Communications ScandalJohn Rigas started Adelphia Communcations in 1952 with the help of two partners, but soon bought it out. The company went public in 1986 and therefore would have to comply with SEC regulations. In the early 2000s, Adelphia was one of the leading cable companies in the United States. It was the climax of a company that would begin a downward spiral during the first half of 2002 following the fraudulent use of company assets at the expense of its shareholders. Members of the Rigas family drove the company into bankruptcy by spending company funds wildly on personal expenses (Barlaup, 2009). These expenses included the misuse of company aircraft for personal travel by members of the Rigas family and the construction of a personal golf course on the family's private land (Markon, 2002). This was accomplished after careful manipulation of company-reported figures and fabrication of transactions within the company. Co-borrowing and proprietary trading were commonplace during this period, resulting in more than $2 billion in debt. All this was done under the noses of the shareholders and resulted in an insurmountable debt that would lead the company to bankruptcy and the imprisonment of several members of the Rigas family (Barlaup, 2009). First Ethical Problem The first glaring ethical problem in the Adelphia scandal stems from the idea that the Rigas family was using company money for personal gain. Nearly $12.8 billion was used to start building a personal golf course on their own private land and even more to cover expenses related to using the company's plane for personal use . The use of this money was then hidden in the middle of a paper... an axis that one would wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal law” (Pecorino, 2000 ). The idea of ​​his theory is that everyone should act towards others in a way that they would want others to act towards others in accordance with good will and universal law. Take for example a poor employee's performance report. Are you giving this person a great performance report because you like them as a person? Or are you upfront with them and telling them that their performance is lacking and needs to be improved? To follow the categorical imperative, you give them a bad report because it's the right thing to do to help that person succeed in the future. It explores the idea that an act or decision can still be morally good if it follows the guiding rules of the universe, even if that act does not produce maximized good (Barlaup, 2009).