Consolidated Objecting Class Members (the “objectors”) appeal the district court’s *446 order denying an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

Even putting aside timeliness issues presented by the Appellees, the objectors are entitled to attorneys’ fees only in the event that they can show either (1) that they conferred some benefit on the class or (2) that they substantially improved the settlement under consideration. See, e.g., Uselton v. Commercial Lovelace, Inc., 9 F.3d 849, 855 (10th Cir. 1993); City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 560 F.2d 1093, 1098 (2d Cir. 1977). The burden is on the objectors to show one of these criteria has been met. The district court, in a well reasoned opinion, concluded that they had not carried that burden.

This court reviews such finings for abuse of discretion. Haitian Refugee Ctr. v. Meese, 791 F.2d 1489, 1496 (11th Cir. 1986). The district court laid out in detail how the objectors’ claims were based on speculation that is unsupported by the record. We agree with these findings; therefore, we conclude that the district couit did not abuse its discretion and affirm the denial of attorneys’ fees and costs.

AFFIRMED.