An investors’ case against Aetna Inc. for allegedly making false statements about the company’s “disciplined pricing strategies” to drive up its stock price several years ago has been thrown out by a federal judge.

In a 49-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Thomas N. O’Neill Jr. determined that the statements made by the national health insurer were protected by the “safe harbor” provisions in securities law.

The judge said the statements were not false because they were clearly “forward-looking” and accompanied by “meaningful cautionary” statements telling investors of potential risk.

In the case before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, O’Neill called the statements in question “immaterial and not actionable because they are puffery, vague and non-specific expressions of corporate optimism on which reasonable investors would not have relied.”

Lawyers for a group of investors, which had sought to be a class action on behalf of all Aetna shareholders affected by the statements, argued that the insurer’s “seemingly excellent performance” and string of profitable quarters through mid-2005 “was illusory and based on a carefully orchestrated deception,” according to reports. By 2006, the company’s performance was not as strong, according to the suit.

The suit alleged that instead of its “disciplined pricing strategy,” Aetna top executives named in the suit, including Ronald A. Williams, John W. Rowe, Alan M. Bennett and Craig R. Callen, sought to expand market share by underpricing Aetna policies. The suit also alleges that Aetna wanted to get customers, even if it meant the insurer would lose money on one-, three- or five-year contracts, and that it hoped to make up the losses when customers renewed their contracts. Furthermore, according to the suit, Aetna officials said entering into money-losing contracts was a “common practice” because competition was tough.

The first suit had been filed by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) in October 2007.