What is the clear benefit to denying rather than pleading the fifth? I know from Psychology that telling a jury to disregard information makes it seem more valuable and true, but that's more speculative than what you seem to have seen.
You open yourself up to perjury charges as well as the charges you were trying to protect against with the Fifth, plus you open yourself to unlimited cross-examination and impeachment of your testimony.
Oh, wait, you said benefit.
Avoiding an injunction against your business.
I would hold off on taking any lessons at all until it's had a few years to work its way through the courts: News has the problem that outrage generates clicks and views. The question of "Should a company distance itself from executives accused of a crime by a competitor?" seems better served by referring to decades of case law, than by reacting to any news article.
I am considering GP's situation directly -- leaving a company to create a start up and then being sued.
If he didn't steal, he should say so to save his business. If he doesn't say so, he risks his business. That's the downside.
Of course, if he did steal, he should shut up and lesson #2 explicitly doesn't apply.
The present situation is different -- Levandowski's fate probably isn't tied to Uber's and certainly vice versa.
> I would hold off on taking any lessons at all until it's had a few years to work its way through the courts
I stand by the "don't steal" lesson :-)