The Adelphia Communications Scandal John Rigas founded Adelphia Communications in 1952 with the help of two partners, but soon bought it out. The company went public in 1986 and as a result would have had to comply with SEC regulations. In the early 2000s, Adelphia was a major cable company in the United States. This was the pinnacle of a company that would begin a downward spiral in the first half of 2002 due to the fraudulent use of company assets at the expense of its shareholders. Members of the Rigas family drove the company into bankruptcy through rampant spending of company funds on personal expenses (Barlaup, 2009). These expenses included serious misuse of the 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 achieved after careful manipulation of the numbers reported by the company and the invention of transactions within the company. Co-lending and self-dealing were commonplace during this time period, generating over $2 billion in debt. All of this was done under the noses of shareholders and culminated in an insurmountable debt that would drive the company into bankruptcy and the incarceration of numerous members of the Rigas family (Barlaup, 2009). Ethical Issue OneThe first glaring ethical issue in the Adelphia scandal arises from the idea that the Rigas family was using company money for personal use. Nearly $12.8 billion was used to begin construction of a personal golf course on their private land and an even larger amount to cover expenses related to the use of the company plane for personal reasons. The use of this money was then hidden behind... in the middle of paper... axiom that you would like all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal law” (Pecorino, 2000). The idea in his theory is that all people should act towards others in a way that would have other people act towards others according to good will and universal law. Take for example providing a poor employee performance report. Do you give that person a stellar performance report because you like them as a person? Or are you honest with them and tell them that their performance is lacking and they need to improve? To follow the categorical imperative, give them a bad report because it's the right thing to do to help that person succeed in the future. Explores the idea that an act or decision can still be morally good because it follows the guiding rules of the universe, even if that act does not produce the maximized good (Barlaup, 2009).