Home / Companies / Uber Technologies, Inc. / 6 May 2024
Uber Technologies, Inc.: meeting of 6 May 2024
Votes reported on Form N-PX, item by item
1,501 Form N-PX filers reported votes at the Uber Technologies, Inc. meeting of 6 May 2024. Their records fall into 7 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
11 nominees; 90.7% of reported votes for; 280 filers withheld from or voted against at least one nominee.
11,698 vote records from 410 filers. 3 of the 408 filers that marked the item either way voted against management. 2 filers reported this item without a management mark.
One filer reported a share count too large to be the holding described. No share split is published for this item. How that is decided
SECTION 14A SAY-ON-PAY VOTESIssuer
Advisory vote on executive pay (say-on-pay)
2,610 vote records from 1,468 filers. 103 of the 1,429 filers that marked the item either way voted against management. 39 filers reported this item without a management mark.
5 filers reported share counts too large to be the holding described. No share split is published for this item. How that is decided
AUDIT-RELATEDIssuer
Audit-related items (auditor ratification)
1,063 vote records from 407 filers. 6 of the 405 filers that marked the item either way voted against management. 2 filers reported this item without a management mark.
One filer reported a share count too large to be the holding described. No share split is published for this item. How that is decided
COMPENSATIONIssuer
COMPENSATION: management items
Management items in this category are shown together; filers word and number them differently.
54 vote records from 33 filers. 3 of the 33 filers that marked the item either way voted against management.
CORPORATE GOVERNANCEIssuer
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: management items
Management items in this category are shown together; filers word and number them differently.
1,051 vote records from 403 filers. 47 of the 401 filers that marked the item either way voted against management. 2 filers reported this item without a management mark.
One filer reported a share count too large to be the holding described. No share split is published for this item. How that is decided
HUMAN RIGHTS OR HUMAN CAPITAL/WORKFORCESecurity holder
Stockholder proposal to prepare an independent third-party audit on Driver health and safety.
1,036 vote records from 402 filers. 60 of the 401 filers that marked the item either way voted against management. 1 filer reported this item without a management mark.
One filer reported a share count too large to be the holding described. No share split is published for this item. How that is decided
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.
3 vote records from 3 filers. 2 of the 3 filers that marked the item either way voted against management.
How the largest families voted
| Family | 1. Directors | 2. Say-on-pay | 3. Auditor | 6. Proposal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vanguard | For | For | For | Against |
| BlackRock and iShares | For | For | For | Against |
| Fidelity | For | For | For | Against |
| Dimensional | For | For | For | Against |
| State Street and SPDR | For | For | For | Against |
| American Century | For | For | For | Against |
| Franklin Templeton | For | For | For | Against |
| Invesco | For | For | For | Against |
| Equitable | For | For | For | Against |
| Charles Schwab | For | For | For | Against |
| Nuveen and TIAA | For | For | For | Against |
| ProShares and ProFunds | For | For | For | Against |
| John Hancock and Manulife | For | For | For | Against |
| Morgan Stanley, Eaton Vance and Calvert | For | For | For | Against |
| J.P. Morgan | For | For | For | Against |
| Goldman Sachs | For | For | For | Against |
| WisdomTree | For | For | For | Against |
| PGIM and Prudential | For | For | For | Against |
| Jackson National funds | For | For | For | Against |
| Northern Trust and FlexShares | For | For | For | Against |
| SEI | For | For | For | Against |
| T. Rowe Price | For | For | For | Against |
| Thrivent | For | For | For | Against |
| Lincoln Financial | For | For | For | Against |
| Voya | For | For | For | Against |
| First Trust | For | For | For | Against |
| Russell Investments | For | For | For | Against |
| Nationwide | For | For | For | Against |
| Victory Capital | For | For | For | For * |
| Brighthouse Funds | For | For | For | Against |
| Guggenheim and Rydex | For | For | For | Against |
| Columbia Threadneedle | For | For | For | Against |
| BNY Mellon | For | For | For | Against |
| Principal | For | For | For | Against |
| Capital Group and American Funds | For | Against * | For | Against |
| Pacific Life funds | For | For | For | Against |
| Global X | For | For | For | No report |
| MFS | For | For | For | For * |
| Transamerica | For | For | For | Against |
| Federated Hermes | For | For | For | Against |
| AllianceBernstein | For | For | For | Against |
| Hartford Funds | For | For | For | Against |
| DWS | For | For | For | For * |
| PIMCO | For | Against * | Against * | For * |
| Allspring | For | For | For | Against |
| MassMutual | For | For | For | Against |
| Harbor Funds | For | For | For | Against |
| Virtus | For | For | For | Against |
| VanEck | For | For | For | Against |
| Macquarie and Delaware Funds | For | For | For | Against |
| Janus Henderson | For | For | For | Against |
| Neuberger Berman | For | For | For | Against |
| American Beacon | For | For | For | For * |
| Natixis and Loomis Sayles | For | For | For | Against |
| Lord Abbett | For | For | For | Against |
| Harris Associates and Oakmark | No report | For | No report | No report |
| Baird | No report | For | No report | No report |
* 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 Uber Technologies, Inc. meeting?
1,501 Form N-PX filers reported votes at the meeting of 6 May 2024. On say-on-pay, 103 of 1,429 voted against management (7.2%). One proposal from security holders could be told apart in the filings. 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 Uber Technologies, Inc. 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 Uber Technologies, Inc.
Provenance: SEC EDGAR, Form N-PX and N-PX/A filings listing Uber Technologies, Inc. with a meeting date within three days of 6 May 2024. 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.