Home / Companies / Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. / 3 Sep 2025
Check Point Software Technologies Ltd.: meeting of 3 Sep 2025
Votes reported on Form N-PX, item by item
278 Form N-PX filers reported votes at the Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. meeting of 3 Sep 2025. Their records fall into 6 items below, in ballot order: management items first, then proposals from security holders. Each bar shows how the reporting filers split; it is not the result of the meeting.
foragainstabstain, withhold or otheramber tick: the portion cast against management
Items
DIRECTOR ELECTIONSIssuer
Director elections
6 nominees; 94.7% of reported votes for; 24 filers withheld from or voted against at least one nominee.
2,495 vote records from 211 filers. 1 of the 204 filers that marked the item either way voted against management. 7 filers reported this item without a management mark.
SECTION 14A SAY-ON-PAY VOTESIssuer
Advisory vote on executive pay (say-on-pay)
245 vote records from 78 filers. 3 of the 68 filers that marked the item either way voted against management. 10 filers reported this item without a management mark.
AUDIT-RELATEDIssuer
Audit-related items (auditor ratification)
416 vote records from 210 filers. 13 of the 203 filers that marked the item either way voted against management. 7 filers reported this item without a management mark.
CAPITAL STRUCTUREIssuer
CAPITAL STRUCTURE: management items
Management items in this category are shown together; filers word and number them differently.
103 vote records from 36 filers. 0 of the 32 filers that marked the item either way voted against management. 4 filers reported this item without a management mark.
COMPENSATIONIssuer
COMPENSATION: management items
Management items in this category are shown together; filers word and number them differently.
1,513 vote records from 218 filers. 4 of the 210 filers that marked the item either way voted against management. 8 filers reported this item without a management mark.
Several categoriesSecurity holder
Shareholder proposals (not separable from the filings)
Filers described these proposals in wordings that could not be matched to one another, so they are shown together.
2 vote records from 1 filers. 0 of the 1 filers that marked the item either way voted against management.
How the largest families voted
| Family | 1. Directors | 2. Say-on-pay | 3. Auditor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vanguard | For | No report | For |
| BlackRock and iShares | For | For | For |
| Fidelity | For | No report | For |
| State Street and SPDR | For | No report | For |
| American Century | For | No report | For |
| Franklin Templeton | For | No report | For |
| Invesco | For | No report | For |
| Equitable | For | No report | For |
| Charles Schwab | For | No report | For |
| Nuveen and TIAA | For | No report | For |
| ProShares and ProFunds | For | No report | For |
| John Hancock and Manulife | For | No report | For |
| Morgan Stanley, Eaton Vance and Calvert | For | No report | For |
| J.P. Morgan | For | No report | Against * |
| Goldman Sachs | For | No report | For |
| WisdomTree | For | No report | For |
| PGIM and Prudential | For | No report | For |
| Jackson National funds | For | No report | For |
| Northern Trust and FlexShares | For | No report | For |
| SEI | For | No report | For |
| T. Rowe Price | For | No report | For |
| Thrivent | For | No report | For |
| Lincoln Financial | For | No report | For |
| Voya | For | No report | For |
| First Trust | For | No report | For |
| Russell Investments | For | No report | For |
| Nationwide | For | No report | For |
| Victory Capital | For | No report | For |
| Brighthouse Funds | For | No report | For |
| Guggenheim and Rydex | For | No report | For |
| Columbia Threadneedle | For | No report | Against * |
| BNY Mellon | For | No report | Against * |
| Principal | For | No report | For |
| Pacific Life funds | For | No report | For |
| Global X | For | No report | For |
| MFS | For | No report | For |
| Transamerica | For | No report | For |
| AllianceBernstein | For | No report | For |
| Hartford Funds | For | No report | For |
| DWS | For | No report | For |
| PIMCO | For | No report | For |
| MassMutual | For | No report | For |
| Harbor Funds | For | No report | For |
| Virtus | For | No report | For |
| VanEck | For | No report | For |
| Neuberger Berman | For | No report | For |
| American Beacon | For | No report | For |
| Natixis and Loomis Sayles | For | No report | For |
* against management. A family's position is the way most of its reported shares were voted across its filers; "split" means no single position led. "No report" means none of the family's filers listed the item.
Questions
How did large funds vote at the Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. meeting?
278 Form N-PX filers reported votes at the meeting of 3 Sep 2025. On say-on-pay, 3 of 68 voted against management (4.4%). The family table lists each of the largest families item by item.
Is this the meeting result?
No. These are the votes of funds and managers that file Form N-PX, counted by filer and by the shares they reported. The certified result, which includes every shareholder, is reported by Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. on Form 8-K.
Why are director elections shown as counts only?
Director records name the nominee. This site does not publish pages or rows about individuals, so for director elections it keeps the number of nominees and the split of votes and discards the wording.
Every meeting on file for Check Point Software Technologies Ltd.
Provenance: SEC EDGAR, Form N-PX and N-PX/A filings listing Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. with a meeting date within three days of 3 Sep 2025. Proposal titles are the most common wording among filers and are replaced by the SEC category where a wording could name a person. Not verified by the SEC. Filings read through 23 Sep 2026.