The starting point of the work was the decision BGHZ 222, 165, in which the IX. Senate partially dealt with the insolvency of a self-employed global assignor. Specifically, the question was whether the pre-insolvency global assignment could access the claims generated by the debtor in the insolvency proceedings if the self-employment had previously been released under § 35 Abs. 2 Sentence 1 InsO. Since the Senate wanted to protect the debtor in their self-employment, it applied the prohibition on earning under § 91 Abs. 1 InsO, contrary to the clear wording, to the income of the debtor that fell into the non-insolvency estate. The decision demonstrated that the regulations of insolvency law reach their limits in this constellation. This applies not only in relation to the insolvency proceedings following a negative declaration according to § 35 Abs. 2 Sentence 1 InsO. In all other conceivable phases of insolvency, it poses a particular challenge to balance the debtor's interest in continuing operations with the opposing interests of the global assignor and other insolvency creditors in accessing the debtor's income. Against this background, the author aims to examine, in chronological order, the interactions of the global assignment of the self-employed debtor with the opening proceedings, the insolvency proceedings, the period of good conduct, and finally the discharge of residual debt.