I believe - a) it was their choice to take it - or fail altogether - they chose the more prudent path (for once) for their jobs and the business. Forced would mean the had it forced on them even if they did not want the money. Don't know of a financial institution that had the money forced on them even thought they actively refused it. They gladly took it because they lobbied for it....
It was take it - or - take it with Bush's Paulson.
"We don't believe it is tenable to opt out because doing so would leave you vulnerable and exposed. If a capital infusion is not appealing, you should be aware that your regulator will require it in any circumstance. And then the amounts in billions the banks were forced to take were just 'penciled in' to the agreements without much thought (as evidenced by the GS amount changing, again in pen from $20B to $10B on a whim). It is disgusting. The agreements are Dear A$ letters, enter bank name "here", enter amount of taxpayer money they will get "here". And that evening the CEOs were expected to call their boards telling them they were participating. It real-world Godfather fashion, Paulson made them an offer they could not refuse.
Some were forced, whether they actually needed/wanted it or not and then under Geithner some were stonewalled when they wanted to pay it back. »online.wsj.com/article/SB1238798···163.html
