NEW ORLEANS — A federal judge in New York on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit from investors who alleged top executives of Transocean Ltd. misled shareholders about safety problems in the months leading up to a catastrophic oil well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald threw out a class-action suit against Transocean. The Swiss company leased the Deepwater Horizon rig to BP PLC to drill a deep-sea well off Louisiana. The well blew out in April 2010, killing 11 workers, destroying the rig and causing the nation’s worst offshore oil disaster.

Buchwald ruled Transocean did not mislead investors about problems with blowout preventers, human errors and equipment. Investors alleged company CEO Steven Newman concealed information about safety problems with Transocean’s drilling rigs. The suit also named former CEO Robert Long as a defendant.

The judge said it was “difficult to discern” from the lawsuit which “specific misrepresentations or omissions” the suit took issue with. The lead plaintiff was Danica Pension, a European pension fund based in Denmark. The lead lawyer for the plaintiffs did not immediately return messages seeking comment Tuesday.

Transocean said in a statement that it was pleased with the ruling.

The plaintiffs focused on comments Newman made at three investor conference calls from August 2009 to July 2010.

In a conference call on Aug. 5, 2009, Newman told investors “a couple of human error incidents on drill floors” and a “handful of BOP (blowout preventer) problems” were anomalies that were not systemic, and that steps were being taken to make sure they were being taken care of. He was speaking of issues Transocean faced in the second quarter of 2009.

The plaintiffs alleged that Transocean “was suffering from company-wide failures in safety and preventative maintenance” when Newman made these statements, the ruling said.

The plaintiffs charged that Newman again misled investors during a May 28, 2010 conference call when he said the Deepwater Horizon’s blowout preventer was tested every week and was shown to be working properly shortly before the April blowout.

The plaintiffs alleged that Newman’s statements were misleading because the blowout preventer was tested at pressure levels lower than what it would be expected to operate in if there was a blowout. Buchwald said those tests were approved by federal offshore regulators and that Newman had no obligation to “second-guess” regulators.