When Company X has been declared insolvent and gone into liquidation, the liquidator argued that Company W should be responsible for the debts of Company X because Company W is the parent company of Company X and there is a common directorship between the two companies. Which of the following precedents can assist Company W to refute the arguments made by the liquidator? a. Bank of Tokyo Ltd v Karoon [1987] AC 45 and Andar Transport Pty Ltd v Brambles Ltd (2004) 206 ALR 387 b. Ballantyne Suites Pty Ltd v Ballantyne Chambers Pty Ltd (in liq) [2014] VSCA 223 and Creasey v Breachwood Motors Ltd [1993] BCLC 480 c. Walker v Wimborne (1976)