Which of the Following Statements Explains Why Mrs Prest Was

Which of the following statements explains why Mrs Prest was entitled to the assets of Mr Prest on divorce in the Supreme Court case of Prest v Pertrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34?

A) Mr Prest owned the assets outright and Mrs Prest was therefore entitled through the divorce proceedings under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
B) The Supreme Court allowed the company assets to be identified as the personal assets of Mr Prest by providing that special rules existed in divorce proceedings to look behind the corporate structures.
C) The company assets were held on resulting trust for Mr Prest as the properties had been transferred into company ownership purely to defeat Mrs Prest's claim to the assets on divorce.
D) The company assets were held on resulting trust for Mr Prest, as the assets in question had either been purchased with money provided by Mr Prest directly or by selling the properties to the companies concerned at an undervalue.